Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

At 06:09 PM 2/5/2000 , Milton Mueller wrote:
>I think the truth lies in the middle. Certainly IANA established precedents

While such language sounds like nice compromise, I did not define two 
end-points, nor did you.  Hence reference to a "middle" has no obvious 
meaning.  Nor does anything that followed in your note make clear what you 
meant.


>and in 1994, when 1591 was drafted, Jon Postel was just beginning to
>struggle, none too successfully, with the political and economic forces set
>in motion by the commercialization of the web. In my opinion IANA and ISOC
>never adjusted successfully to the problems posed by commercialization.

A meaningful range of software products for the net started appearing in 
1987 and commercial services started around 1990.  By 1994, there were 
estimated to be 2 million users of the net.

So suggesting that somehow IANA had not been "dealing" with the relevant 
changes to the net prior to that is simply wrong.  (As a small aside it is 
worth noting that documents of the type cited tended to document 
established procedure rather than define new ones.)


>Internet Society Board, and yet, it did not happen. The gTLD-MoU was also
>endorsed by Postel, ISOC, and even ITU and INTA, yet its proposed new TLDs
>were not added. Clearly, there was a need for a new institution and new
>processes.

It is not at all clear why you have chosen to offer your summary of general 
IANA/DNS history, rather than attend to specifics of .EU admission.  In 
fact, your note contains no specifics at all in that regard, other than a 
vague reference to "policy implications" and "bad faith", without offering 
any basis or detail about either.

But since you introduced the question of history:  The loss that you refer 
to was the direct result of intervention by Ira Magaziner.  He nicely and 
fully de-stabilized the previously well-established position of IANA.  Had 
he not intervened, the gTLDs-Mou would have been fully implemented.

The unpublished U.S government multi-agency task force recommended support 
of the gTLD-MoU, but Magaziner knew better.

Hence we continue to have no new gTLDs and now find people challenging the 
addition of ccTLDs.

Failing to find a way to counter the considerable political power that 
Magaziner wielded can hardly be classed as a failure of IANA or Postel to 
respond to the commercialization of the net.


>ICANN and its DNSO were supposed to be the solution to that problem.
>Commerce Dept specifically delegated the task of adding new TLDs to ICANN's
>DNSO. It is in the White Paper. DNSO is not an "abstract sandbox," it is
>supposed to be the solution of three years of rancourous debate over
>delegation authority. And it is a debate that the European Commission played
>a major role in shaping the outcome of. In particular, it was the EU that
>insisted that no new TLDs be created until a new, representative
>international organization was established.

The White Paper does no such thing.

Since you claim otherwise, I request that you cite the specific supporting 
text, and caution that text in the White Paper is quite sensitive to proper 
use within context.

I'll also note that the White Paper is more in the style of guidance than 
dictate.

And lastly, nothing about any of this supports changing well-established 
policy.


>On very narrow, technical grounds, one could say that if the Europeans
>succeed in getting .EU added to the ISO-3166 list that they can get a TLD.

Yeah, that's the trouble with having established procedure and then trying 
to follow it.  The only counter-punch left to critics is to complain that 
the action is valid only on "narrow, technical grounds".  This nicely 
misses the philosophical basis for ccTLDs, which EU entirely conforms to.

Oh, I suppose that one can use narrow, technical grounds, to debate and 
contest the term "country", but one attuned to the intended philosophy 
knows full well that it pertains to a class of entities, such as 
governments, sovereignties, and the like. The EU definitely is such a thing.


>But for anyone who's aware of the history and attuned to the policy
>implications, this is an extraordinary act of bad faith and manipulation.

One would think that being so well attuned to "policy implications" 
(whatever that might mean) would cause one to be extremely cautious about 
CHANGING established policy for an infrastructure service.


>There are probably 50 other regional and international entities that could 
>apply on similar terms. This process could succeed in politicizing and 
>corrupting the ISO list as well.

The fact that they haven't applied is supposed to serve as a reason to 
prevent EU addition?

What a strange logic.

Oh, and one should note the humor inherent in worrying about politicizing a 
list of "country" codes, given the rather massive amount of politics 
already present in the concept, never mind practise, of countries.

And again one should note that that was why IANA cite presence in that list 
as necessary and sufficient:  It moves the difficult (read: political) 
issues elsewhere.  So I guess that means that those worried about 
politicization of an ISO process should talk with ISO.

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA

Gong Xi Fa Cai   /  Selamat Tahun Baru Cina