Re: [ga-roots] TLD's

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>
To: <ga-roots@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 3:17 AM
Subject: RE: [ga-roots] TLD's


> |> -----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.

It IS being commercialized through ICANN's deals with Verisign and others.
What is it you don't see here?

>
> |> 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.

How will more TLDs do that? And give specific examples please.

>
> |> 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.

Governance is NOT another word for Cooperation. A thesaurus is cheap. Buy
one. Govern: (related words) manage, oversee, REIGN, preside over,
supervise, DIRECT, COMMAND, sway, administer, CONTROL, REGULATE, determine,
influence, guide, lead, RULE. The capitalised words seem to be ICANN's goal.

Cooperate (related words) UNITE, COMBINE, HELP, CONTRIBUTE, SUPPORT. The
capitalised words being those that relate to the TLDA and to what many of us
wish ICANN intended.

And the destabilising effects ARE at the TLD level due to ICANN's handling
of the introduction of new TLDs.

>
> |> 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.

Then get a TLD and join up. They will have one more.

>
> 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.

So glad you approve of it being a business to manage a TLD. A higher level
of user participation is not being fostered by ICANN or by the COMMERCIAL
Constituencies now voting on the issues. That is partly why we are here.
They are also not a nonprofit INTERNATIONAL body. They are a California
Nonprofit Organization with 501C-3 status. They have not been making
decisions that benefit users worldwide. They have been making decisions that
benefit US commercial interests. Again partly why we are here.

>
> 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
>

--
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