Re: [wg-c] Two Para D&I Summary (PPE)

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

----- Original Message -----

> The model for deployment advocated in PPE is

very simple: give a TLD to me and my friends.

> The model for implementation advocated in PPE is the public resource DNS
model,
> with shared registries operated on or near their cost-recovery basis, with
some
> affirmative policy or jurisdictional scope applied by the registry
operator.
> The policy/scope may be "weak/none" (e.g., identical to NSI registries) or
> "strong/specific", (e.g., identical to the North American Aboriginal
proposal).

Nonsense. Time to call this year-long bluff.

If you actually read the proposal, the so-called "public resource" is owned
by the registry operator, because the operator determines who can and cannot
register names in the .naa name space.

I have no problem with this -- it's just a proprietary registry model, put
forward by a non-commercial entity or group of entities. What does strike me
as incoherent is a description of this as a "shared" registry.

Tell us, please, how an SRS standardized interface that allows any
accredited registrar in the world to write names into your zone file 24
hours a day without your permission or knowledge is compatible with
"strong/specific" policy choices. Did I miss the clause in the ICANN
accreditation contract that requires each of them to know which tribal names
belong to which groups?

Or may be the registrations accepted from several hundred registrars will be
held in suspension for a few months while the Indian Councils decide who
gets what. In which case, one might well ask, why bother with these
registrars at all? Why not just file the request with the Council to begin
with?

As for "cost recovery," that model made sense, even if it was not
universally desirable, when gTLD-MoU proposed that the registry be owned by
registrars themselves. Because as owners the registrars would have the
knowledge, the incentive, and the authority to determine what true costs
were and reduce wholesale rates to cost-recovery levels.

If the registry is not a consortium of registrars -- and your .naa proposal
clearly is not -- the only way to get "cost recovery" is through government
rate regulation, as in the NSI contract. So perhaps you can clarify this for
us.