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

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

To Stuart Lynn;

Do you consider the ICANN BoD simply submitting something to the NC
sufficient to say that you reached a Bottom up Consensus on the Issue and
sufficient to say you sought input from the Internet Stakeholders and the
Community in general?

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
To: <ga-roots@dnso.org>; <lynn@icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 1:43 PM
Subject: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version


> Well thank you! This message DOES answer my question.
> (starting at point below)
> I'll read it carefully and respond if appropriate.
>
> >>> "M. Stuart Lynn" <lynn@icann.org> 06/20/01 04:32PM >>>
> Dear Milton:
>
> ****That is an interesting distinction but one which, in my view
> glosses over a major point. My paper does not assert that ICANN would
> purposely grant the same TLD name to one that already exists in an
> alternate root. Neither, on the other hand,  did it say that it would
> purposely avoid doing so. What it in effect said is that it would be
> erroneous for any alternate (pseudo or otherwise) root operator to
> *assume* that ICANN would necessarily avoid doing so. What the draft
> effectively says is that ICANN's orderly decision process (always, of
> course, subject to improvement) operating within its public trust
> would not be preempted by actions taken by others operating outside
> of the public trust. That is, do not assume that by creating a TLD
> within an alternate root, you receive credit with ICANN's own
> processes and can thereby tie ICANN's hands.
>
> ****To put it another way. ICANN has no policy asserting that it will
> give credit to any TLD created outside of ICANN's processes. Which
> means precisely that ICANN can give no credit to any TLD created
> outside of ICANN's processes. Which is what I wrote.
>
> *****By my reading, however, the White Paper does in fact provide
> guidance on this point. It repeatedly refers to the need for
> decisions about new TLDs to be coordinated in a way that is
> accountable to the community (in so many words). Simply allowing any
> alternate root to preempt names hardly sounds like such
> accountability to me. What would stop such a root from choosing all
> the nouns in Webster's and any other dictionary to preempt future
> competition? Where would community accountability and coordination be
> in such a case?
>
> *****We now have interesting situations where, quite independently of
> ICANN, there is conflict between most of new.net's names and names in
> other alternate roots. This is the expected result of a regime where
> root-zone decisions are made in an uncoordinated fashion by companies
> based on their individual commercial concerns. Given the incentive
> for a better-financed commercial actor to muscle aside a weaker one,
> the result of this lack of coordination is name conflicts that
> certainly does not make for a stable DNS.
>
> ****Perhaps the language in my draft needs to be clarified and indeed
> strengthened in this regard. I'll take a look at it. Thank you for
> making the point.
>
> >
> >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.
>
> ****That is an assertion for which I would like to see your
> foundation, since the assertion is absolutely false. Once again, you
> are impugning motives to me without checking with me first -- there
> is no way you can know my motives unless I tell you. In fact, not
> only did I expect and welcome discussion within a community that is
> not known to be reticent, but I have clearly provoked it. That is no
> surprise to me whatsoever. I would have been more disappointed by the
> absence of discussion. And, incidentally, I have received a number of
> very constructive comments on the draft, many of which I hope to
> reflect in the final version.
>
> >
> >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.
>
> ***Interesting assertion, but again no foundation. (1) I am not sure
> I would agree with the assertion that the DNSO process has in fact
> broken down, although I am sure there is always room for improvement
> as with any part of ICANN. (2) I do understand, though, that you
> voted in favor of the Names Council resolution that declared that
> "the Names Council considers that multiple roots are outside the
> scope of the DNSO", a resolution that seems at odds with positions
> you had expressed in earlier emails. Apparently you were convinced by
> your colleagues.  I think you are trying to assign responsibility to
> *me* for the fact that apparently you were unable to persuade your
> Names Council colleagues to share your original point of view.
> Perhaps *you* should take responsibility yourself for not being
> sufficiently convincing.
>
> >
> >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.
>
>
> ****Your "spin" of what transpired seriously jumbles the facts.
>
> ****The Board, of which I subsequently became a member, reviewed the
> VeriSign contract revisions and concluded that they did not
> constitute a policy revision. And I certainly agreed with the
> majority of the Board (even though I was not a member at the time of
> the Melbourne meeting, the Board implicitly reemphasized its decision
> at its subsequent meeting when I was a member). The Board, however,
> did ask the community, including the Names Council, for comment
> during a 30-day comment period, not because it was a policy matter,
> but because the Board likes to receive input from the community
> whenever it can. The Names Council ignored nothing -- the NC's input
> was specifically solicited in a Board resolution and was responsive
> to that resolution. The NC  provided helpful comments that they
> regarded as being essential to a "win-win" situation. I and other
> members of the ICANN staff worked hard to incorporate as many of
> those comments a possible, and subsequent negotiations (right up to
> the last) resulted in most of them being incorporated into the final
> agreements. The NC input was very helpful.
>
> ****In this case, the ICANN processes worked really well. I sense you
> might have been happier had we gone ahead with signing the agreements
> and obtaining ultimate DoC approval without incorporating any of the
> NC suggestions. Then you really and justifiably could have criticized
> the results.
> >
> >
> >>>>  "M. Stuart Lynn" <lynn@icann.org> 06/15/01 12:17PM >>>
> >
> >[childish insult deleted]
>
> ****The smiley face at the end indicated a joke. Please do not
> consider it an insult. On the other hand, do you consider it mature
> behavior to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest?
>
> >
> >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.
> >  >
>
> --
>
> __________________
> Stuart Lynn
> President and CEO
> ICANN
> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> Tel: 310-823-9358
> Fax: 310-823-8649
> Email: lynn@icann.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
>

--
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