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

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 02:16:15AM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2001-06-15 12:41:54 -0700, M. Stuart Lynn wrote:
> 
> >ICANN has many policies that are embodied in our charter documents 
> >that have not been separately and explicitly codified in a single 
> >policy document. For example, we have a policy derived from those 
> >documents that commit us to further the stability of the Internet.
> 
> "Stability of the Internet" is hardly a policy, but rather one of 
> the basic principles underlying ICANN.

There is no substantive difference.

From my dictionary: Policy -- "Any governing principle, plan, or course
of action."

> "Policy" seems to be understood by most of those who participate in 
> this discussion as a reference to Art. III S. 3 (b) in the bylaws:
> 
>    (b) With respect to any policies that are being considered by the 
>    Board for adoption that substantially affect the operation of the 
>    Internet or third parties [...], the Board will: [...]

You have no point.  That quote above uses the term "policy" in precisely
the sense defined in my dictionary, and there really isn't any other
interpretation that makes any sense.  It is simply a fact true by
definition that there are lots of different policies that have been part
of ICANN from the beginning -- policies established by custom or the
White Paper or whatever.  You and others are trying to make an esoteric 
technical term out of the word "policy", and it simply isn't warranted.  

> Obviously, any policy with respect to alternative roots _is_ a 
> policy affecting third parties, so I'd hope that the board takes 
> care not to blur the line between a III 3 (b) policy and the board's 
> interpretation of the white paper, which is obviously not shared by 
> all members of the community.

Yes, there is a vocal minority.

> >When there are important issues on the table, I will continue to 
> >summarize existing policies that may be embodied in those 
> >documents and elsewhere (including those that have been explicitly 
> >stated) and articulate them for the community. Particularly - as 
> >in this case - when I receive enquiries as to what our policy on a 
> >given topic may be. That is part of my job.
> 
> While it seems to be pretty evident from some of the Stockholm 
> discussions that certain powerful players want commitments from the 
> board on the non-acceptance of alternative root operators (or else 
> may start to operate alternative roots of their own), I find the 
> procedure you have choosen quite bad: In fact, you are hardly trying 
> to foster discussion in ICANN's policy-making bodies.  Instead, you 
> are trying to declare a board commitment (which certainly happens 
> with the very best intentions) as "policy", based on some rather 
> weak arguments you rip out of the White and Green Papers.

Sorry, it is your arguments that are weak.  Semantic nitpicking about
the meaning of the word "policy" can hardly be called a strong argument. 

> >Articulating existing policies is very different from creating new 
> >policy. That requires consensus-based approaches. And I do not 
> >think any of us disagree on that.
> 
> Let's have a look what portions of the white and green papers you 
> quote on alternative roots.
> 
> First, we have the green paper section which classifies 
> Internet-related activities into "those that can be moved to a 
> competitive system and those that should be coordinated".  "We then 
> suggest the creation of a representative, not-for-profit corporation 
> to manage the coordinated functions according to widely accepted 
> objective criteria".
> 
> This section says that ICANN is necessary, and that it should 
> coordinate certain functions.  However, it doesn't contain any 
> micro-management of ICANN's coordination activities.  In particular, 
> it doesn't say "please ignore the existing alternative roots".

Nobody said it did.  

> Second, you quote the white paper's sentence that "the introduction 
> of a new managmenet system should not disrupt current operations or 
> create competing root systems".  This sentence is indeed listed as a 
> principle to which ICANN should commit.  Thus, it is indeed the 
> closest thing to a policy on alternative roots which is listed in 
> the entire white paper.
> 
> But what does this sentence really say?  Does it say anything about 
> how ICANN should handle TLDs which are registered in alternative 
> root systems?  No.  

Nonsense.  It gives a clear direction to ICANN that it should not 
encourage the creation of alternate root systems.  And it is crystal 
clear that any recognition of existing alternate root systems would be 
an encouragment for the creation of more.

[...]

> But anyway, this quote once again only says that decisions to add 
> new TLDs must be made following due process.  It does not say what 
> kinds of objective deliberations should be part of this process, and 
> whether or not particular attention should be paid to existing 
> alternative roots.  (This is actually a good thing: ICANN may happen 
> to encounter a situation in which an alternative TLD is so 
> well-established that creating a competing incarnation of that TLD 
> would cause actual damage and destroy both players.  In such a 
> situation, ICANN would have to take alternative roots into account.)

Sure -- if someone holds a gun to your head you will give them your 
wallet.  That doesn't mean that you have a policy of recognizing 
robbery as a legitimate activity.

-- 
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