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

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]

Stuart:
I see (and I'm sure everyone else does as well) that you have
not addressed my question. 

Reiterating your adherence to a "single authoritative
root" does not provide any guidance as to whether new TLDs
added to ICANN's root should or should not avoid conflict with
TLDs in use by other roots. In either case, one could say one is
adhering to a single, authoritative root.

But since the object of your "discussion draft" was to pre-empt
discussion rather than to faciliitate it, I see that you are being
quite consistent. 

I agree with Brett Fausetts statement. The issue now has
more to do with process. DNSO process has broken down 
on every serious policy issue. You have contributed to that.

Let me recall, Stuart, when we first met in Washington, you 
argued that the revision of the Verisign contracts was not a 
change in policy either. You argued that you did not need the
consent or approval of the Names Council. 

Fortunately, the NC ignored that and passed a resolution calling
for changes in the agreement. Your patrons at the Commerce Dept
and FTC seemed to agree with the NC, didn't they? That "non-policy"
issue attracted serious attention from the US executive branch 
and is still attracting serious attention from the US Congress.

Your credibility is eroding.  

>>> "M. Stuart Lynn" <lynn@icann.org> 06/15/01 12:17PM >>>

[childish insult deleted]

The basis for the statement that ICANN's policy is to support a 
single authoritative root is extensively articulated in my document 
and the references clearly cited. The White Paper, the Memorandum of 
Understanding, and the Articles of Incorporation give clear 
indication of ICANN's Policy. They are ICANN's charter documents. I 
suggest you read them again. They are not very hard to understand and 
their statements with regard to an authoritative single root and to 
competing roots are quite clear. My statement on ICANN Policy is not 
unilateral -- it is well-grounded in the community processes that led 
to the White Paper and to the formation of ICANN.


At 6:02 PM -0400 6/14/01, 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.
>
>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. Both decisions were off-the-cuff ones made by the Board in
>November. But there is no documented policy process that would explain
>why they avoided conflict in one instance and not in another.
>


--
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