Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 06:34:31PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> From: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>
> > In my opinion anyone that supports new TLDs in ANY form should support
> > the .eu proposal.
> 
> I understand this perspective. But the effective destruction of DNSO process
> would outweigh the benefits of breaking the logjam, particularly if it is
> done under the subterfuge of a new ccTLD.

There is no reason to think that this would destroy DNSO process.  On 
the contrary, I think it would create incentive to get real DNSO 
processes in place.

> > It should be clear to anyone paying attention that
> > if processes are being developed it is happening at such a slow rate
> > that it isn't visible to the naked eye.  The gears are completely
> > stuck, and we need movement to get them unstuck.
> 
> In what sense are they stuck? We have overwhelming support in this WG and in
> the public comments to proceed with their creation.

There has been strong support for the introduction of new TLDs since 
before the IAHC.

> The Board has indicated
> its willingness to discuss the issue at its impending meeting. The next step
> is to define more specific ways of implementing the introduction of the
> first 10 new TLDs. 

Ie, the next step is to define the process.  Ie, we have made zero 
progress in the definition of process.

> If ICANN's board decides to include .EU in that initial
> batch, it wouldn't bother me a lot, as long as a procedure was defined to
> continue adding them.

Ie, ICANN's board will define the process, and the DNSO, and this WG, 
will have served the incredibly useful purpose of reporting to the 
Board that there is demand for new TLDs.

> > But seriously -- it may take something with the political force of the EU
> > to get *ANY* TLD through the system.
> 
> That is true ONLY if the "political force" is channelled into the
> development of an open, nondiscriminatory process. If CEC just manages to
> win a special concession for itself, it sets a very bad precedent.

Possibly, but it also creates the fact of a new TLD *approved through
ICANN*.  Right now there are multiple forces arrayed against any new
TLDs, including some TM interests, some of the ccTLD registries, and of
course NSI.  Those forces have their greatest effect through the USG. 
It is not clear at this point that ICANN has the power to create a
new TLD of any kind -- recall that it is DoC that currently holds the
keys to the root, and that the DoC is vulnerable to many pressures that
we don't see. 

That is, even if ICANN somehow approves the 10 you fondly dream about,
that doesn't mean they will get in the root.  ICANN of course knows
this, and is not going to generate a confrontation over the issue.  In
my opinion it will take significant political pressure to get ICANN as 
a whole in position to even begin using some kind of process.  On the 
other hand, if ICANN *does* approve a new TLD, the pressure for 
processes will only intensify -- ICANN itself *needs* a process.

> I would like to know more explicitly where you stand.
> Are you conceding that ICANN's organic processes are useless?
> Why are you giving up now?

I'm not giving up anything.  My political awareness is different than 
yours. 

> The issue has not been passed to the NC, nor
> formally considered by the Board. The WG has just completed the first phase
> of its work. How can you say that we are "stuck?"

Because we have accomplished nothing.  No processes will come out of 
the DNSO until it is clear that they are actually needed.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain