Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 01:05:12AM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> Kent argues that one of the difficulties with the consensus-call proposal
> is that it precludes ICANN from considering a proposal for a new gTLD
> charter/string unless that proposal comes from somebody actually seeking to
> run that TLD.  A good idea for a new TLD, he urges, could indeed come from
> just about anybody, and it's arbitrary to say that ICANN can't consider
> such a proposal unless it comes from a would-be "registry."
> 
> I think the consensus-call approach has two strengths.  First, I think the
> focus on an *application* process, rather than a process in which ICANN
> simply assembles a list of potential TLDs proposed by the world at large
> and picks its favorites, will induce ICANN to proceed with greater
     ********************
> procedural regularity, and to feel a greater obligation to justify the
> choices it makes.

Nothing in my proposal, or in any proposal of which I am aware, says
that ICANN will simply "pick its favorites", and in fact that is *not*
what I have in mind.  Instead, I have *always* advocated that there
should be *public* approval process for TLD names.  That approval
process by which names might be selected (another thing this WG could
have worked on, but didn't) is unknown at this point.  An approval
process for TLD names can be just as procedurally regular as an approval
process for registry selection. 

In fact, of course, a strong case can be made that leaving the choice 
of TLD names to registries is simply an abdication of an affirmative 
duty that ICANN has to get public input in TLD selection.

Moreover, there is a registry application process in either case.  The
only issue is whether *the community* has any input or control over TLD 
names, as opposed to simply letting registries decide.

> Second, the consensus call attempts to incorporate the
> virtures of compromise, by bridging the gap between two positions
> well-represented in the WG.  The first camp urges that ICANN should select
> new gTLD charters/strings at the outset, as a pure policy matter, before
> operational concerns come into play.  As far as the initial rollout is
> concerned, thus, ICANN should begin by selecting 6-10 gTLD strings,

I would word that rather differently: ICANN should begin by setting in
motion a process by which the Internet community selects 6-10 gTLD
strings.  It could be as simple as calling for proposals and then 
having the At-Large vote.  Though that is far too simplistic to be a 
general mechanism (there is no provision for the development of meaningful 
charters, for example) it might be sufficient for the initial rollout.

In the long run a better process (IMO) would be to charter working
groups to develop proposals for gTLD strings. 

In the meantime development of registry criteria could proceed in 
parallel -- entities interested in being registries could apply to 
ICANN with concrete business plans.

 and
> only afterwards call for applications by some set of registries (perhaps
> fewer than the number of new TLDs ) to run them.  The second camp, OTOH,
> views this approach as uncomfortably top-down.  They urge that actual
> registry operators are better equipped than is the ICANN Board to determine
> what new gTLDs consumers actually want,

But this is a completely bogus argument -- the choice isn't between the 
ICANN board choosing and the registries choosing -- it is between the 
*community* choosing and the registries choosing.  The ICANN board 
oversees the process, but *nobody* has proposed that they simply throw 
darts at a list of proposed names...

> and that the true competitive spur
> comes from the presence in the marketplace of different *registries,* not
> merely different gTLD strings.  ICANN, they argue, should limit its role to
> operational vetting of would- be registries.

ICANN should limit its role to operational vetting of would be 
registries *and* oversight of the community TLD name selection process.

>  The consensus call draws from
> the first camp the basic position that it should be ICANN, rather than
> private registries, choosing the identity of the new TLDs in the initial
> rollout, and draws from the second camp the notion that a regime in which
> the initiative for new gTLDs comes from the registries that actually want
> to run them will best foster the innovation, branding, & provision of
> value-added services that competitive registries can offer.

But it is an illusion.  The fact is that the language restricting
applications to "registries" is vacuous without a definition of what a
registry is.  Without that definition, anyone at all can say "I'm a
registry" and submit an application, and it falls upon ICANN to evaluate
the reality of the claim.  But even worse, the definition of registry
*can't* be over precise.  For example, it can't be limited to already
existing registries, because that precludes development of new
registries.  If IBM decides to apply there is no question that they have
the technical ability to field a registry in short order, even though
they currently are not running one.

Milton, the author of the proposal, said that anyone who ICANN says is 
a registry is a registry...

> I'm coming to wonder, though, whether this vision is limited in a way that
> I didn't focus on initially.  The advantages that I suggest above for a
> system in which the initiative comes from applicant registries come into
> play in connection with *commercial* TLDs.  They're got less value in
> connection with noncommercial TLDs such as Jamie's .SUCKS.  (I think
> there's less to the recent discussion of who is a "registry" than meets the
> eye.  If Jamie Love and XYZ Registry agree on a proposal that incorporates
> operational responsibility for XYZ and policy authority for Jamie, then
> they can file the proposal jointly, and at least one of those folks is
> plainly a "registry" for this purpose.

Which one?  It's all very fuzzy and warm to say that it doesn't matter, 
but we waste a tremendous amount of time on arguments where the 
opponents really are talking about different things...

> But we're still left with Kent's
> question whether there's any *value* to requiring Jamie to establish such a
> relationship in advance.)  Harold Feld, a while ago on this list, suggested
> that ICANN might use entirely different selection mechanisms for commercial
> and noncommercial TLDs.  I'm wondering whether that would indeed be a
> superior approach.

There is tremendous overlap between "commercial" and "non-commercial".

> Another point: Several people, while casting votes in favor of the
> proposal, have commented that the proposal is acceptable to them only if
> the selection process is bounded by meaningful objective criteria, so that
> ICANN can't exercise wholly unbounded discretion in picking the 6-10.  That
> sounds right to me: It seems to me that that concern is important.  At the
> same time, as Eric has recently pointed out (and Kent has emphasized
> previously), we haven't in fact made much progress in developing criteria
> that meaningfully limit ICANN's discretion.  I think the Sheppard/Kleiman
> principles -- even if we were all agreed on their content -- are too
> general to play that role.  And I'm doubtful that we'll get too far in the
> couple of days before I have to finalize the current report to the NC.
> 
> Reactions?  Am I right in these late-night assessments, or is the
> consensus call proposal a better one than I'm giving it credit for just
> now?  If I am right, is there a good (and quick) way to address (some of)
> those concerns?

Frankly, I think this consensus call is premature.  The only way we can
get consensus in this area is through deliberately ambiguous or vague
general statements that people don't think about too much.  Consensus 
based on such flimsy ground will certainly fold under the first bit of 
pressure. 


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