Re: [ga] PLEASE COMMENT: Suggested ALAC response to sTLD RFP

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I really like Jefsey's alternative viewpoint, highlighting the paternalistic
role of USG and ICANN, in laying claim to the control of what may or may not
become TLD, and vastly exceeding any justifiable mission it ought to have.

If ICANN merely had the role of ensuring the technology worked, and kept
right out of judgements and selections on who has or has not the right to
operate a new TLD, then we'd start getting the focus right.

I really like and appreciate the idea of Jefsey's that TLDs might naturally
spring up around communities or interest groups who, having sought the
appropriate logistics, simply needed to answer key questions to meet
criteria for operating a TLD.

This should have nothing to do with ICANN which, if the USG must insist it
still exists, should be simply seeing that the right switches get flicked.

You could actually operate an intelligent, rolling, two-year plan (a new one
initiated each year)... inviting communities, businesses and anyone else
seeking a TLD to present themselves and their plans, and respond to the key
questions, to prove eligibility.

You could promote a worldwide invitation (instead of saying pathetically
"just a handful of parties who applied last time") and then publicise all
the applications for public scrutiny, and a step by step acceptance process.

After launch, the market place would confirm or deny viability. Some TLDs
might be huge, some might be tiny, but individual companies or communities
would be able to grow and develop in *freedom*.

Given that the DNS system can accommodate a vast expansion of TLDs, and
given that there would be many parties and communities keen to proceed, what
God-given right does ICANN and USG feel they have to dominate the flow and
supply of TLD descriptors, as if they were in some way in authority over the
rest of the world?

Digital imperialism, more like...

Yrs,

Richard H

----- Original Message -----
From: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ga@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] PLEASE COMMENT: Suggested ALAC response to sTLD RFP


> Dear Thomas,
> I am sorry for this as you obviously put some serious
> effort in this ALAC analysis, but it has two basic flaws:
>
> 1. it deals with a network system managed by ICANN
>      yet it does not refer to the ICANN rules to manage
>      its network system.
> 2. it responds to a demand of ICANN, not of the public
>      and @large.
>
> The name space doctrine of ICANN is defined in ICP-3.
> Every further discussion should therefore be based
> upon ICP-3. ICP-3 refers itself to RFC 920 as the
> legitimate root of ICANN's legitimacy.
>
> RFC 920 wording may be deemed obsolete, not its
> principles which found the name space for 20 years,
> which were consensual at that time, are confirmed
> by RFC 1591, ICP-1, proposed ccTLD BP and even
> by the RT/BPs we wrote for inclusive roots.
>
> 2000's TLDs extensions are odd in many ways, but
> it was a first extension in 16 years, and basically
> do not hurt that doctrine (except for biz and info),
> ICP-3 confirmed afterward.
>
> That doctrine is that:
>
> 1.  a TLD is the name of a real or a virtual network
>       into the legacy root.
>
> 2.  legacy TLDs are registered by the NIC (today
>       IANA or ICANN)
>       - as per the list of the RFC 920 (the then standard
>         international list)
>       - for multiorganization groups gathering more
>         than 500 regustrants (RDC 920).  i.e. to respond
>         and existing need identified either by the Global
>         Internet Community.or by a significant community.
>
> 3.  a TLD Manager is a trustee to his community and
>       its Registry (a task he may delegate). gTLDs are
>       under direct control of the NIC, not ccTLD nor
>       multiorganization TLD Managers.
>
> 4.  the initial interconnects where experimental. ICP-3
>       calls for new experimentations and lists their rules
>       (non profit, by the GIC, reversible, not endangering
>       the DNS operations).
>
> The general idea is that a new TLD should respond to
> the need of a significant number of identified registrants
> either through non commercial pre-registration/tests or
> as 3LD registrants of an existing SLD the GIC would
> see an advantage to move into a TLD. In both  cases
> the key word is "existing community" whose trustee is
> thefuture TLD Manager. Not the other way around.
>
> The only task of ICANN is to respond suich demandes
> in making sure there is no challenge to the use of the
> chosen name by another group of equivalent size, that
> the entry of the name in the root does not create
> technical  problems and that RFC 920 and 1591 and
> ICP-1 and 3 technical requirements are met.
>
> Everything which goes that way is OK.
>
> Everything else is ICANN mission creep. It is most
> probably to the long/medium range detriment of ICANN
> and of the network stability because it goes beyond
> ICANN legitimacy what will be challenged interests
> affected by the decision.
>
> The document you should propose should be a
> questionnaire to a candidate TLD community's trustee,
> listing all the RFC and ICP resquirments. To publish the
> responses and if not challenged in a significant way
> (here is where some fair imagination may be exercised)
> within three months, the TLD should be entered into
> the root.
>
> Since ICANN is a defact o USG Agency, you might be
> interested in the procedure of the FCC about filing a new
> service or a new rate.
>
> jfc
>
>