Re: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 06:02:39PM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> Stuart:
> 
> I would request that you modify your statement to indicate that there 
> currently is NO stated consensus policy on the adoption of TLD 
> assignments by ICANN that are in use in alternate or competing roots.

On the contrary, I think the statement should be strengthened, for 
exactly the reason that the Tucows representative gave:  to give any 
deference whatsoever to alternate root providers would simply encourage 
avoidance of the ICANN process.  Right now the big players don't do 
alternate roots for two reasons:  1) they realize the technical 
instabilities it would create; and 2) even more important, they realize 
the total chaos that would prevail if ICANN gave any credence 
whatsoever to alternate roots.

> I can prove easily that there is no policy: ICANN has explicitly avoided
> a conflict in the case of .WEB, and it has created a conflict in the case
> of .BIZ.

You have a pretty weak notion of "proof".  If anything, what we have is
clear proof that ICANN has simply been following a policy of ignoring
any precedent set by alternate roots. 

[...]

> The White Paper simply does not address the issue.

Yes, it did.  There is a large load of policy inherited from history,
and official rejection of alternate roots is one.  Moreover, whether you
like it or not, the IAB *is* the the most authoritative technically
competent opinion available, and ICANN simply cannot ignore that fact,
no matter how much you would like it to. 

> Working Group C
> did not address it.

Of course not.  Neither did working groups A, B, D, or E, because that 
wasn't in *any* of the WG charters.  You could just as well note that 
President Bushes latest speech doesn't address the issue.

> Nor did the Names Council resolution passing on 
> WGC's recommendation to create new TLDs.

Of course not.  See above.

> In your unilateral policy statement known as the "discussion draft,"
> you made it clear that you do not like alternate roots. I would ask 
> you to look beyond that, as it is irrelevant to the question I am raising. 
> We must not confuse the question of whether there is a prior
> policy with the question of WHAT the policy should be. We may agree
> or disagree on the latter. But the only conclusion an honest person 
> cam come to about the former is that it is a policy question that has
> not been carefully defined and explored. 

Sorry, that is utter nonsense, and please don't cloak yourself in the
"honest person" flag -- an honest person would notice that there are
many more possible and likely interpretations of past events than the
facile one that you propose.

It is undeniable fact that there is a long and continuous history of
rejection of alternate roots, a history that preceeded ICANN by years. 
And it is I believe completely obvious that what the Tucows
representative said is true: any deference to any alternate root would
instantly open the floodgates, and worldwide there would be thousands of
new alternate tlds immediately insisting on recognition.  

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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