Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting the gTLDs in the initial rollout

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 02:04:41PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> > Why? It would be perfectly reasonable for ICANN to say "Yes, we think
> > that your idea for the '.foo' TLD is excellent, but we understand quite
> > well why you wouldn't want to run it, and accept your suggestion to put
> > it out for bid.  In the extremely unlikely case that there are no
> > acceptable bids, then of course we won't use it."
> 
> Kent is saying 

Please -- don't try to put words in my mouth.  You do a lousy job.

> that groups could propose, and ICANN accept, TLDs WITHOUT the
> proposer having arranged for specific contracts or operational arrangements
> to actually register names. That position seems unworkable, and antithetical
> to the emerging consensus.
>
> Under Kent's alternative, some group could be designated "policy authority"
> over a TLD without having any demonstrated ability to actually provide a
> service on the Internet.

Nope.  Any group could *propose* a gTLD.  "Propose" is not the same as
"be designated".  Under the Mueller proposal the only parties that can
even *propose* a gTLD are "registries".  Of course, without a concrete 
definition of "registry", that proposal is ambiguous past the point of 
usefullness....

> The relationship between its policy authority and
> the implementation of the policy via the registry operation would not be
> specified. On what basis, then would the delegation of a TLD be made? On the
> grounds that ICANN "liked the idea"? Not good enough.

You are making up a bunch of strawman hypotheticals.  The *criteria* for
the delegation of a gTLD are the big issues regardless of whether it is
a "registry" that proposes a gTLD.  We have made no progress whatsoever 
in defining useful criteria.

> On what basis would
> ICANN give a "good idea" to one proposer rather than another proposer with a
> similar idea wanting the same TLD string?

On the quality of the total proposal, as judged by a set of
yet-to-be-defined criteria.  Definition of concrete criteria is a big
job -- that's true regardless of who proposes gTLDs.  Not to beat a dead
horse -- it's also a job in which we have made essentially zero
progress. 

> All business firms involved in complex operations "put things out to bid" as
> part of the process of assembling their service. If I win a contract to run
> a restaurant concession on the NY Thruway, I may contract with another firm
> to supply the food, the labor, etc. But I am still the concessionaire and I
> take responsibility for assembling the package.

At this point your definition of a "registry" is "the entity that takes
responsibility for assembling the package"?

> > Note that I am not in any way restricting a registry from making a
> > proposal for a TLD -- I am simply saying that there is no good reason to
> > restrict proposers to registries only, and many good reasons not to make
> > such a restriction.
> 
> Both you and Brunner seemed to be equating "registry" with "existing
> registries."
> This is a logically unnecessary equation.
> 
> Anyone who proposes to run a tld is a registry.

Thanks.  That is *precisely* the empty definition I gave.  :-) The
implication, of course, is that if I propose to run the .kjc TLD, I am a
registry... 

> Thus, any group that wants "policy authority" has to team up with a viable
> operations entity when making its proposal, or do the job itself.

I can do the job myself.  I wouldn't have it any other way. 

> Whether
> the actual "nuts and bolts" are outsourced or not, is not relevant to our
> task. What is relevant is that the proposal be complete. ICANN is delegating
> the right to run a registry, to maintain a zone file under a TLD. If a group
> hasn't figured out how to do that yet, it shouldn't get a delegation.

I know how to do that, too.  What you are saying is that pretty much
anyone can be a registry.

> > "be WILLING to operate or take responsibility for" [a registry] is, I
> think, in most
> > people's mind, different than "be a registry".
> 
> This is where we part ways. There is no difference. For ICANN's purposes, an
> organization that gets a TLD delegation is a registry.

OK.  A third definition.  I can live with this one too.  Empty, circular
definitions are very liberating. 

> This is true
> regardless of whether they outsource the computer operations part of it or
> not. Really, your point seems to be purely semantic at this point. You are
> choosing to call a company a "registry" only if they do the computer
> operations and help desk stuff. I find this distinction to be idiosyncratic
> to Kent Crispin -- all extant models of things that we call "registries"
> involve "policy authority," whether it is NSI or your typical ccTLD.

To summarize: According to you a registry is 1) an entity that "takes
responsibility for putting the package together", 2) anyone who proposes
a TLD, 3) any entity that ICANN is willing to delegate a TLD to.  No
particular conditions of operational competence are defined -- anything
may be outsourced

Let's put these together, now -- the wording "recently urged by Sheppard
and Mueller", and your clarification of what is meant by "registry". 
These are direct quotes:
   
  Registries would apply describing their proposed TLD, and an ICANN
  body or process would make selections taking into account the
  characteristics of both the registry and its proposed TLD.  For
  ICANN's purposes, an organization that gets a TLD delegation is a
  registry -- that is, anyone who proposes a TLD and takes
  responsibility for putting the package together. 

With this clarification I can sleep a lot better tonight.

> > Nope.  A perfectly reasonable model is that they are the policy
> > authority for the registry, but don't have anything to do with the
> > day-to-day operation.
> 
> "Don't have anything to do with" are strong words. Do you mean that ICANN
> would select an operational partner for them? They could not change the
> operational contract when they wanted?
> Give me one real-world, actually existing example of such a thing.

Example:  IANA defined the policy for .edu; NSI carries out the day to 
day operation of the registry.

>  Certainly
> Jamie Love's CPT would manage and select the operational partner, and impose
> conditions and procedures regulating who could or could not register in
> .union or .sucks. The nuts and bolts operations are simply managerial
> responsibilities of the delegatee. Love's organization is the "registry."

Yes, I understand.  Precisely.  Your expanded definition of registry 
allows Jamie Love's CPT to be a registry, even though it has no 
infrastructure of its own; doesn't have a help desk or any of that 
stuff; and can replace that operational component as it sees fit.

> > Which is easier:
> > 1) Given an approved TLD string, find a qualified registry to operate it
> > 2) Given a registry, find an approved TLD string to operate.
> 
> You don't seem to have thought this through carefully.
> If registries are willing to "pound down the door" to operate a TLD string
> AFTER it has been approved, they would also be willing to make arrangements
> with proposers BEFOREHAND, in the hope that it will be approved.

?? Doesn't follow.

1) I go to Dunn and Bradstreet and tell them I have a great idea for a
.xxx TLD for explicit sexual content, and would they please sign a
contract with me saying they will run my TLD, in case it gets approved?
They politely show me the door. 

2) I go to Dunn and Bradstreet with a signed paper from ICANN saying
that ICANN approves the .xxx TLD, and that I just had to find a
qualified registry operator to operate it....

> The only
> difference is that in the second case, the policy authority and the operator
> have to work together BEFORE they get a delegation. Which is, I think,
> better.

Actually, in the average case I agree that it would be better to work
out those details in advance.  However, I don't see any point to
limiting proposals to such cases. 

> What you don't explain is on what basis ICANN would make a delegation
> (approve a TLD string) in the absence of any specifics about operational
> details.

You are right -- I don't.  No point -- there aren't any specific
criteria for operational details available, either.  One would think 
that this WG might have tackled that problem, perhaps after we had done 
the necessary work of coming up with a taxonomy, so we would know what 
we were talking about when we used the word "registry".

> Also, Your thinking about this is limited by the fact that you think of a
> "registry" as a generic function with no differentiation.

No, it is not, and that is not what I think.  You would be better off 
if you avoided trying to tell people what it is they are actually 
thinking. 

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