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

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>]

Let's try to stay rational and go through this one more time. But this is my
last stab at it; I've better things to do with my time.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>

> While such language sounds like nice compromise, I did not define two
> end-points, nor did you.

Extreme 1: IANA has already defined all necessary procedures to handle the
problem.
Extreme 2: There are no existing procedures and all must be started from
scratch.
Both are wrong. The truth is in the middle.

> 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.

I am referring specifically to the management of the top level of the name
space. Commercial pressure on that process did not begin until 1995, when
charging for domain name registrations began, as you well know. In 1994,
when RFC 1591 was defined, there was no charging.

> So suggesting that somehow IANA had not been "dealing" with the relevant
> changes to the net prior to that is simply wrong.

IANA did not issue a single controlling RFC regarding new TLDs or TLD
delegation since 1994. As soon as charging was implemented and control of
the root became a legal political and economic issue of significance it lost
control. Wrt ccTLDs, even before 1994 IANA was learning to its dismay that
ccTLD delegations were becoming more contentious politically, particularly
after episodes in Haiti and China. RFC 1591 was a reaction to that. It was
clearly not a definitive one because the whole issue is still up in the air,
as far as the GAC is concerned.

[snip]

> [IANA's loss of authority over adding names to the root]
> 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.

This is obviously wrong. Magaziner was not even paying attnetion to this
issue in 1995, so he could not have prevented draft-Postel's proposal to add
150 TLDs (an episode you wisely chose to ignore in your response). As you
know, the trademark interests and ITU stopped that proposal (another fact
you chose to ignore). Also, the new TLD proposers didn't like Postel's
proposal either. The implication is clear: IANA had, even BEFORE the
gTLD-MoU, completely lost the legitimacy and authority to add new names to
the root. The GTLD-MoU was a rather desperate attempt to regain that
authority by forming a political alliance with the trademark interests and
the ITU. The problem was that the whole thing had no legal authority. IANA
and ISOC did not own the root and their attempt to privatize it in their own
initiative therefore was doomed to failure.

Mueller:
> >Commerce Dept specifically delegated the task of adding new TLDs to
ICANN's
> >DNSO. It is in the White Paper.

Crocker:
> 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.

Wow, Dave. You really know how to lob a softball into the middle of the
plate.
OK, here we go.

"_ As Internet names increasingly have commercial value, the decision to add
new top-level domains cannot be made on an ad hoc basis by entities or
individuals that are not formally accountable to the Internet community."

"Response: The challenge of deciding policy for the addition of new domains
will be formidable. We agree with the many commenters who said that the new
corporation would be the most appropriate body to make these decisions based
on global input."

"As set out below, the U.S. Government is prepared to recognize, by entering
into agreement with, and to seek international support for, a new,
not-for-profit corporation formed by private sector Internet stakeholders to
administer policy for the Internet name and address system. Under such
agreement(s) or understanding(s), the new corporation would undertake
various responsibilities for the administration of the domain name system
now performed by or on behalf of the U.S. Government or by third parties
under arrangements or agreements with the U.S. Government."

The White Paper goes on to enumerate those functions, which it calls "the
coordinated functions." One of them is:

"In order to promote continuity and reasonable predictability in functions
related to the root zone, the development of policies for the addition,
allocation, and management of gTLDs and the establishment of domain name
registries and domain name registrars to host gTLDs should be coordinated."

There's more:

"Purpose. The new corporation ultimately should have the authority to manage
and perform a specific set of functions related to coordination of the
domain name system, including the authority necessary to: ....

3) oversee policy for determining the circumstances under which new TLDs are
added to the root system."

And of course according to ICANN's articles and bylaws, the DNSO is
responsible for initiating all policies related to domain names,

> 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.

This is what happens when computer programmers get it into their heads that
they are policy experts and political scientists. The EU is not a "country."
It is an association of countries. The EU has no sovereignty. Whatever
governmental powers it has are delegated to it by real governments. The
distinction is important, but only to people who have some grasp of
political institutions.

--MM