Re: [ga] Re: more tlds = more competition in my opinion, was: Re: Election...

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Karl and all former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,

  It is also clear that "the ICANN way" is not working very well regarding
tld "Allocating".  It seems fairly clear that dictating business plans in
determining
what a "Good tld" is or is not is artificial restraint of trade.

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
> > kidsearch said the following  on 13/08/2006 16:22:
> >> Hmmm. Okay I just have a question. So if you got approved to run a tld
> >> of your creation, ICANN would also allocate part of that to someone
> >> else as well?
> > In that case, I would inclined to give the operator of that new TLD some
> > kind of exclusivity during the first years. Does that make sense ?
>
> I take a somewhat different approach - that ICANN, or its successor,
> should not be "allocating TLDs".  Rather it should be granting - we can
> argue about the terms of the grant - the right to place a name of the
> operator's choice put into the root zone (with the appropriate NS and
> other resource records as well).
>
> I call this the granting of TLD "slots" rather than allocation of TLDs.
>
> The grantee of this right gets to chose the string, subject to
> reasonable constraints such as character set, as long as nobody else has
> inserted it into the root zone.  There would be no semantic criteria: If
> somebody wanted to put "puppy-fumping" into their slot, so be it.
>
> The *only* questions that I believe should be asked of the applicant are
> these:
>
>    1. Will you follow published and widely accepted internet *technical*
> standards?  (We can argue whether IPv6 is "widely accepted".)
>
>    2. Will you resolve and respond to query packets accurately and
> without prejudice against or preference for any query source or any
> query content?  (I'd probably want to modify this to allow private
> services as long as the publicly listed servers in the NS records were
> run fairly and equitably.)
>
>    3. Will you refrain from using your position in the root zone to
> engage in conduct that is prohibited by civil or criminal laws of most
> nations?
>
> If they are willing to say "yes" to these questions, then they should
> get their slot.
>
> To my mind that is all that ICANN should be asking.  The huge process
> and deeply intrusive inspection of business plans is simply wrong - it
> serves no technical purpose and contributes not one whit to the
> technical stability of the internet.  It's merely a kind of Jim Crow
> system designed to impose "The ICANN way".
>
> In addition it is completely unreasonable to require that a new TLD
> operator come up on day one with a set of servers, not to mention a
> front end order processing system, that would support .com.  If the
> grantee expects only low traffic, then they should be allowed to
> build-out to that level.
>
>                 --karl--

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827