RE: [ga-roots] TLD's

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

On 22 May 2001, at 20:17, Dassa wrote:

> |> -----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.

The Green and White papers were written because of the 
commercilaization of the web.  It was stated at the Februrary House 
Telecommunications Subcommittee that the reason for ICANN was to 
avoid the APA which is the avenue for public oversight.  It has been 
handed over to the commerical sector, Dassa, and if the authority for the
root is also handed over, it will have gone completely commercial.  

The efforts to derail the at-large, lack of an IDNHC, the UDRP are all
indications of where this is going.

 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.

The IP sector and multinationals will still conrol it, Dassa.  In addition
it is highly unlikely that the USG will let it go that way.  We have to
deal with what we have.  The web (notice I did not say net) has gone
commercial by design.  I don't think that anyone would refute that.  Non-
coms and individuls are cut off under this model.  > > |> 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.

I realize you fail to see the reason for competition at the registry level,
but that is precisely what IS needed.  If each registry has its own
business model, whether it is non-profit or for profit, the competition is
between TLDs and there would also be opportunities for registrars.  It
would be no different from various clothing stores selling different types
of clothing, setting up franchises, distribution channels, etc.  It is a
market, Dassa.  The public will determine what they prefer to purchase 
in
the way of services and the strings they prefer to use for SLDs/TLDs. 
There is room for every conceivable type of TLD - chartered or open. > > 
|>
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 governance.  Its implication is control over an industry by
governments.  Competition does not destablize a market.  It provides
opportunity and choice.  The only thing that will destablize it is
technical irresponsibility.  That is where the TLDA can help.

Keep in mind that there is no way to eliminate the establishment of 
TLDs or roots, for that matter.  It would behoove all of us to recognize
that factor and work with it.  The TLDA could go a long way to encourage
responsible behavior of TLD holders while encouraging the industry to
provide service to its "customers."  > > |> 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.

There will always be input, Dassa.  Customers have a way about them, 
don't they?  They will certainly let us know what they want.  There is an
open list where those who wish to get the attention of TLDA members 
will
have that opportunity.  Would it not be a foolish move to ignore what 
they
have to say?  Customers = registrants and users.  I am also sure that 
TLD
holders and registrars will have "talkback" features on their respective
sites for that purpose.  It would be equally foolish to ignore those
comments.

If the idea is to provide a service and accessibility to domain name 
holders, those who do not will simply not make it.

> 
> 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.

The roots have the ability and control to include whatever subset of 
TLDs they choose.  TLDA will not control that.  However, to say that 
there should be external control over how businesses operate is counter
productive to any free market.  It is usually a much better practice to
abide by current law for business practices (which in the US and other
countries are pretty strict) and have the industry set the technical
standards by which they agree to operate in the best interests of that
industry and consumers.

I can see many roots having a restricted subset of TLDs targeted to 
specific countries or markets for business, cultural or religious 
purposes.  If the market is there for those roots, they will be utiliized. 
OTOH, it is more likely that the truly inclusive roots (all TLDs) will have
more widespread acceptance.  However, it is not within the purview of 
the
TLDA to decide those issues.  The TLDA is totally independent of any 
root
and would provide only a "list" of all known TLDs.  

There are some things I would like to see develop, such as a type of 
certification program where TLDs would meet requirements and receive 
certification based on those.   I'm speaking of technical standards for
operation, not control of business models.

The beauty of this particular business is that it is truly driven by the
consumers if handled properly.  If they don't register names, the TLD
doesn't make it.  When there are plentiful TLDs, consumers have wide
choice.  If they don't like your terms of service, they go elsewhere.  
Some
operations will be very small, such as some of the ccTLDs.  That's fine. 
They should not be excluded or hampered because of their size, pricing
structure, business model.  It's no different from the small boutique as
opposed to the giant department store; the local hamburger stand vs. 
the
giant chain or franchise.

Again, Dassa, the privatization of the Internet was the choice of the USG
based upon its control of it at the time.  Once the technology was
unleashed, there was no way to prevent it, really.  That much is fact. 
Commercialization is a part of privatization.

I fully agree that total commercialization is not in the best interests of
the Internet in the sense that commercial enterprises would control every
aspect of communications.  That is why I am so much against the type 
of
control being exerted upon it today.  The Internet is not just the web.  It
is a means of communication and it must remain open to all.  The 
current
trend will close it, which is why I, for one, have been advocating
cooperation across all TLDs, roots, and other stakeholders.

The TLDA is just one part, but a very critical part, of the entire picture.
 It, too, must remain open and a free market.

Leah


> 
> 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