Re: [ga] Re: On new TLDs

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chris,

In response to the point "Does ICANN currently have in
place a plan to deal with registry business/financial
failure?" Karl earlier wrote:  

"And why should that matter?  As long as the customers
have had adequate reason to know or learn of the
circumstances and risk before they invested their
assets into creation of a name in a new TLD then I'd
say that they made their choice, took their risk, and
are reaping the consequences.  Is ICANN a consumer
protection body?"

I hold a different point of view than that expressed
by Karl...

As an organization, ICANN has agreed to abide by a
certain set of principles that were first enumerated
in the White Paper.  The first principle, and perhaps
the foremost principle, is that of "Stability".  

At its formation, ICANN entered into an understanding
with the U.S. Department of Commerce which served to
guide the transition of DNS management to the private
sector.  That understanding was codified in a document
that we refer to as the MOU.  With respect to registry
failure, the MOU explicitly states:

"Nothing, however, in this Agreement is intended to
prevent ICANN or the USG from taking reasonable steps
that are necessary to protect the operational
stability of the Internet in the event of the
financial failure of a Registry or Registrar or other
emergency."

Both parties to the MOU, ICANN & the DOC, agreed that
a registry financial failure or other such registry
emergency would constitute a destabilizing event.  As
we are obligated to protect the operational stability
of the Internet, a plan to deal with such
contingencies is a paramount consideration.  

Until such time as we change our mutual
"understanding" I will continue to appreciate the fact
that ICANN is in a position to take the "reasonable
steps that are necessary" -- and one such reasonable
step is acting in the public's best interest by
creating registry failover plans to minimize the
prospect of disruption.  


--- kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Danny, you bring up this point; Does ICANN currently
> have in place a plan to
> deal with registry business/financial failure?
> 
> Why is that failure any different than any other
> business failure, such as a
> phone company going belly up or a utility company
> folding?
> 
> What I'm saying is, a registry failing is not the
> end of the world. Either
> another business would or could buy them out or it's
> turned into bankruptcy
> with the usual procedures already in place for that.
> 
> I'm asking for an explanation here. Why is this any
> different?
> 
> Chris McElroy, President,
> Kidsearch Network
> http://www.KidsearchNetwork.org
> http://www.MissingChildrenBlog.com
> http://www.RunawayTeens.org
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 6:43 PM
> Subject: [ga] Re: On new TLDs
> 
> 
> > Karl,
> >
> > Sotiris has touched upon a point that I wanted to
> > raise with you -- he notes that "Vint's
> questioning of
> > the wisdom of adding new TLDs to the namespace is
> > probably where most thinking people ought to be in
> > their reflections on the current state of the
> dns".
> >
> > My concern goes just a little deeper than that...
> when
> > Vint starts to "question the rationale" of
> anything,
> > we have learned to expect that rather dire
> > consequences will immediately follow.
> >
> > It's easy to convince the choir that new TLDs are
> a
> > "good thing", but let's face it... you've been on
> the
> > Board and probably realize moreso than most Vint's
> > singular ability to sway other directors toward
> his
> > position... so, if I may be so bold, let me hear
> an
> > argument from you as to whether we should have new
> > gTLDs that is strong enough to sway Vint.
> >
> > Just so you know, my own opinion (subject to
> further
> > consideration) is that a brief hiatus prior to
> > launching new TLDs is required for the following
> > reasons:
> >
> > . Does ICANN currently have in place a plan to
> deal
> > with registry business/financial failure?  No.
> > . Are all ICANN-accredited registrars currently
> > escrowing all of their registrant data as required
> by
> > the terms of the RAA?  No.
> > . Has ICANN hired the necessary complement of
> > Compliance Program Managers?  No.
> > . Is the Internet community satisfied with the
> > language embodied in current and proposed registry
> and
> > registrar contracts?  No.
> >
> > ICANN's house is not in order.  I would sure feel
> > better about launching new TLDs if ICANN got its
> act
> > together first.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Danny Younger wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would imagine that in Jon Postel's day the
> issue
> > > > wasn't only the competencies and ethics of a
> TLD
> > > > proponent, but also the issue of
> "circumstance",
> > > as
> > > > in, "under what circumstances should a new TLD
> be
> > > > launched?"  Clearly Jon's iTLD file lists
> requests
> > > by
> > > > competent parties that weren't acted upon.
> > >
> > > Jon was not a god.  He was just a very nice
> person
> > > who happened to do a
> > > particular thing.  We should not ossify the
> internet
> > > around his personal
> > > procedures or predilictions.
> > >
> > > Jon was a pragmatist - he did what needed to be
> done
> > > and didn't dig into
> > > motives.  In his time we were getting along with
> a
> > > few TLDs - they had not
> > > been overly monitized by a frenzied dot-com
> boom,
> > > nor had the kind of
> > > entrenched money-pump mentality that underlies
> into
> > > ICANN come to pass -
> > > so the issue of when and why did not rise to the
> top
> > > of the stack.
> > >
> > > But knowing Jon as I did (which was not close
> but
> > > not distant either) I
> > > believe that Jon would have answered a direct
> TLD
> > > request with a couple of
> > > questions:
> > >
> > >    - Does the requestor know what he/she/it is
> doing
> > > (i.e. does the
> > >      requestor know how to follow internet
> protocols
> > > and the
> > >      end-to-end principle?)
> > >
> > >    - Has the requestor really done some
> > > introspective thinking about
> > >      whether they really need a TLD as opposed
> to
> > > doing their thing
> > >      at a lower level in the hierarchy?  (Notice
> > > that the focus of the
> > >      question only asks whether thought had been
> > > exercised; the requestor
> > >      is given the benefit of trust.)
> > >
> > > If so then I believe Jon would have said "go
> ahead,
> > > give it a try".  He
> > > might also have said, if you fail, please
> relinquish
> > > it.
> > >
> > > Jon was part of the internet experiment - an
> > > experiment which still
> > > continues - in which some ideas grew and bloomed
> and
> > > others died.
> > >
> > > The internet landscape is littered with huge
> > > investments in ideas that did
> > > not make it: big visible ones like ISO/OSI,
> medium
> > > ones like gopher, small
> > > ones like supdup.
> > >
> > > So ICANN's idea that a TLD application must be
> > > microscopically examined
> > > and required to demonstrate that it can not fail
> or
> > > that everybody thinks
> > > its the greatest thing since sliced bread simply
> is
> > > not neither the Jon
> > > Postel way nor the classical internet way.
> > >
> > > > Might I ask your view of what should prompt
> the
> > > launch of a new TLD?
> > >
> > > My answer is this: If someone wants to give it a
> try
> > > and can demonstrate
> > > that they are willing and able to follow
> internet
> > > standards, to meet
> > > reasonable performance requirments (requirements
> > > based on their expected
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com