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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Thomas and all,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2001-06-14 15:42:10 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> These are strong and good arguments why ICANN should establish a
> policy to ignore alternate roots.  But they are NOT arguments which
> say that ICANN has already done so in the past.

  It is not obvious that the second of these two arguments is accurate,
but rather it is more speculation than reason.  The first is of course
complete nonsense in that "Competitive and Inclusive" root structures
have been running for 5+ years with less problems or outages that
the USG/LEGACY Root's.

>
>
> >>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.
>
> A policy or a custom?

  Yes a policy...

> There's certainly a difference between the
> two concepts.  In particular, a policy would have to come from a
> pretty well-defined process.  Opposed to that, a custom just means
> that "we have always done it this way".

  Thank you for pointing out ONE of the differences, Thomas.  However
I don't believe it was necessary or all that useful.  >;)

>
>
> I don't believe that blurring the line between the two concepts is
> helpful at all - in particular given the formal role consensus
> xpolicies play in the entire ICANN process.

  No blurring was or is present.  What's you real point?

>
>
> >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.
>
> There isn't much serious disgareement on this - with two exceptions:
>
> - ICANN may wish to pay special attention to .WEB.  It may, however,
>    only pay this special attention when it makes abundantly clear
>    why it is doing so, and that this won't be repeated with more
>    recent instances of alterantive TLDs.

  It may not be repeated, but it is present.  That is the important
factor.

>
>
> - Not paying attention to the alternate TLDs isn't sufficient to
>    keep the floodgates closed.  ICANN MUST speed up the TLD addition
>    process, because otherwise new.net-like business models could
>    become more and more interesting.

  You mean more and more prevalent.  Yes they will become more and more
prevalent, count on it.  At this juncture, "keeping the floodgates
closed", as
you say, is not possible or at least not likely to be a god strategy.
The more
ICANN ignores "Competitive and Inclusive" roots and registries, the more
prevalent they are going to become.  Sticking you head in the sand like
an ostrich will not be considered expectable or reasonable behavior.

>
>
>    Once that is the case, alternate TLDs may create destructive
>    capacities against any colliders ICANN may add later.  Thus,
>    ICANN would be forced into paying special attention to these
>    players, which would in turn further weaken the floodgates.

  The floodgates are already smashed.  It is long past time for the
entrenched ICANN BoD to face the music.  Failing to do so
will only further fragment the internet structure and diminish ICANN's
creditability.  A new DNS age is here.  It is here to stay.  It will
flourish.  ICANN can flourish with it, or wither and die a long and
slow painful death.  Cooperation is the key.  Failure to cooperate
with other root structures and registries structures is folly...

>
>
>    We can only hope that new.net isn't the first such case.

  It hasn't been.  Where would you get this idea?  New.net is
really a late comer...  Next is "Competitive and Inclusive"
IP registries....

>
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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