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

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

[...]
> 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.

The proposal has been read quite a few times, and rather closely, but by
serious federal indian law types, not to mention several hundred fairly
careful indians.

Does application of policy concerning the disposition of an object both
transform the object into property and establish title to the object?

We don't think so. However, feel free to argue the converse. Heck, ICANN can
make cyber-precident up as it goes along, so your theory is possible, though
I'd avoid it on several principles.

> 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.

I don't think anyone has a problem with any one person, or even a group of
persons, arguing for a creative reading of a position paper they oppose. We
don't actually have a process for abuse less flamboyant than Jim Flemming's
or Jeff Williams', so problematic advocacy is a fairly low risk proposition
which you are free to pursue.

If, to make your best arguement, you need to argue that delegation of some
capacity to engage in affirmative policy ("meaning" in S/K) to the operator
of the registry constitutes a "proprietary registry" (new term), feel free
to do so. You are of course free to refrain from making the same observation
when advocating for S/K, I doubt anyone will actually notice if only because
it is clear that S/K doesn't actually "mean" anything but a waste of time.

The incoherence you've put your finger on has been there since Position
Paper E was first published -- policy binds on all registrants, registrars,
and operators of a policed registry. If the registrar (your example) is in
fact accredited for a specific registry policy, then it has write access to
a registry zone file. It is conceivable that expertise sufficient to function
as a competent registrar for .NAA exists in Outer Mongolia, or even Syracuse.

It is unlikely that every registrar ICANN accredits will be equally competent
in every policed domain, but I suppose the case you really are trying to make
is the one you've been pushing for a year -- no policy is the best policy. If
PPE were for a policy specific to the sexual preferences of penguins, you'd
make just as compelling a case against that by arguing that Indians don't know
much about penguins, and don't have many opportunities to make scholarly, if
personal, inquiries into the sexual preferences of Antarctic fowl.

> 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?

It is likely that being responsible for portions of the namespace which have
non-trivial associated policy will require that applicants to be registry
operators, registrars, or critics do their own homework.

I don't care that you don't like indians, the bigger problem is you don't like
limits, the topicality of which is indians today, anything else tomorrow.

> 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?

It would be nice if you'd actually read a) the Position Paper, or b) if
critical thinking on your own is too difficult, asking people who already
have done the work.

There will be edge cases, but that goes with attempting to delimit anything.

> 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.

This is a little far afield, maybe you should try and take a clear swing at
why you don't like policy, and take a deep breath and in a seperate text, do
in cost recovry or at least write a clear critical question.

Try and distinguish between delegation -- a conduct and temporally limited
right to operate (of a registry), and ownership (of a registry). I suggest
the first term is a better choice, but if you insist on the latter that is
your right.

Remember, it isn't the cuteness that counts, its the content. This isn't the
S/K mumble-game, this is title/access/policy/scope/cost. Take your best swing,
and do try not to write for the audience, it only detracts from your limited
arguements -- if anyone cares to read Meuller v Brunner they can sort out the
issues better without horsing around with indirect phrasing.

Cheers,
Eric

P.S. Don't forget to get your own D&I in for PPB. I want you to loose on the
merits, not because you forgot to respond to a request by the NC via our own
co-chair. You don't have to expose it to public criticism, Jon will accept a
response made in a sotto voice.