Re: [ga] Re: On new TLDs

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

The templates for requiring technical competence are already in place.  Check out that thing you are reading this on. On a cord near your power source there is a black and white tag. When you wake your spouse rub her feet and when your down there notice the warning "do not remove this tag". If you want to be a lawyer, try to practice without passing the exam. Apply for a liquor license. Know what the UBC is and why you have railings on stairs?
   
  All ICANN should be is a Global Industry Standards Organization. The market should have more of an influence on ICANN than ICANN has on it. (tail wagging dog is bad use of ergonomics)
   
  All haste should be made to realize ICANNs most original and clear mandate, to open up the Internet and provide mechanisms to create more TLDs.
   
  e

Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Danny Younger wrote:

> Both parties to the MOU, ICANN & the DOC, agreed that a registry 
> financial failure or other such registry emergency would constitute a 
> destabilizing event.

The idea that a business failure of a TLD operator somehow destabilizes 
the internet at a technical level is something that I do not accept.

I have long defined internet stability to mean the net's ability to 
efficiently move IP packets from source IP addresses to destination IP 
addresses. (I've also more recently added that internet stability also 
means that the upper tier (roots) of the DNS system promptly and 
accurately respond to DNS queries.)

My definition has been echoed in the recent proposed ICANN-Verisign 
settlement agreement.

The DoC and ICANN may have reached such a definition - but the fact that 
they did something very stupid and brain dead does not make it right.

There is a prodigious cost should ICANN become a guarantor of TLD survival 
- ICANN then must be so careful about who will receive the grant of 
ICANN's franchise that it effectively kills innovation by elimination any 
but the most conservative plans.

In other words, such an approach would kill the innovation of DNS and, 
indirectly, channel innovation in naming into root systems outside of 
ICANN's control and into systems that do not use DNS.

In addition, if ICANN is to become the gatekeeper into DNS, then we must 
ask what legal grounds give it the right to restrain trade in that way? 
The GAO reports done so far indicate that the DoC is already way out on a 
limb with no clear statutory support.

I'm personally expecting to see the next two years as full of legal 
actions, some claiming billions of dollars in damages, against ICANN based 
on various claims that ICANN improperly limits entry into the domain name 
marketplace, constrains products, sets prices (e.g. the Verisign $6 fee) 
without relationship to costs, etc etc.

For ICANN to restrict TLDs on some claim of "stability" has about as much 
validity as a claim by the FAA that only those airlines serving Pepsi (as 
opposed to some other brand of Cola) can safely land at Federally 
supervised airports and thus are the only airlines that will be allowed to 
fly.

Moreover, if ICANN is to be a regulatory body that claims to protect 
consumers of domain names, then how can it continue to reject and eject 
those same consumers from its forums in which decisions are made?

--karl--




  


			
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
 Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping