RE: [ga-roots] TLD's

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of L Gallegos
|> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 4:11 AM
|> To: ga-roots@dnso.org
|> Subject: RE: [ga-roots] TLD's
|>
Leah

|> No one said it was a small issue.  What I said was that business
|> succeed or fail all the time.  There should be in place a contingency
for
|> a failed enterprise to protect registrants.  It still will not stop a
failure of
|> a business for any number of reasons.  It is one of the issues to be
|> addressed, isn't it.

It is certainly to be hoped so.

|> You haven't?  That was the entire purpose of the Green and White
|> Papers and is precisely the reason for establishing ICANN, a private
|> non-profit corporation in California.
|>
|> Once DoC divests itself of the root (and it wishes to do so whether
|> stakeholders want it that way or not and without the APA governing that
|> procedure) it will be totally privatized.

I think we are looking at the word privatisation in different ways.  I do
not see it as meaning commercialisation. My understanding of the way the
wording was used in the Green and White papers was in the context of the
USG distancing itself from the responsibility and not that the Internet as
a whole should be commercialised.  As you mention, ICANN is a non-profit
corporation.  Other non-profit organizations with a more International bias
could also be formed to fill any necessary roles.

|> Yup.  That's where it is now, except for control of root policy for the
|> USG root.  There needs to be true market competition with registries
|> which means the need for many TLDs.

I see a need for competition at the Registrar level but fail to see any
need for it at the TLD level.  To me, competition at the TLD level will
only increase the problems and the lack of efficient use of the DNS.

|> And I disagree with that type of governance of something that is made
|> up of private entities around the world.  Standards for cooperative
efforts
|> is one thing.  Governance is another.

Governance is another word for cooperation.  It is distinct from commercial
interests which rely more on competition and market share.  I do not
believe we need such destabilising effects at the TLD level.

|> TLDA does not endeavor to govern, Dassa.  Its endeavor is to bring
|> those entities to the table to establish an environment for cooperation
|> and by doing so, come up with operational standards that will benefit
|> everyone.  While it would not dictate operations to members, it would
|> be able to offer some standardization arrived at by those involved, that
|> all TLD operations could strive for.  That brings stabilty.  It is also
meant
|> to be entire inclusionary - all TLDs - leaving none out who wish to
|> participate.

I still have an open mind about the TLDA.  It still concerns me that the
TLDA whilst having goals of being an Industry Standards body and
Association will not have input from large numbers of the participants of
the TLD services.

My own opinion is that we need a higher level of user participation in the
formation of standards and any governing or body intended to maintain
Internet stability.  I do not see such participation coming from commercial
interests.  The only way I can see it being achieved is by having the roots
(which have utimate control over the TLDs within them) governed by
non-profit International bodies.  I have no problem with the TLD operations
being commercial although it is not my ideal.  After all, it is not cheap
to provide Internet services at times and there has to be some funding
arrangements to meet the costs involved.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html