Re: [ga] New TLD Paradigm

[Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael D. Palage wrote:

Hi Michael!  It's good to see your name on some email.

While I agree you you on so many things, I want to raise some points 
that I think illustrate why ICANN is in deep trouble - trouble much like 
that of a friend of mine who discovered that his (old) house had been 
constructed without a foundation and was in danger of total collapse.

> The facts are there are currently various types of TLDs which ICANN has
> added to the root in connection with the 2000 proof of concept and the
> 2004 sTLD: These "types" are sponsored (for-profit), sponsored
> (non-profit), non-sponsored-open, and non-sponsored-restrictive.

Imagine that we are running a private corporation that has a somewhat 
vague relationship with the FAA (US Federal Aviation Administration). 
Imagine that it the FAA has told us that we are empowered to decide who 
may operate an airline and who may not.  Imagine further that as a 
practical matter that without our approval an applicant has no hopes of 
entering the airline industry - we hold the key.

So, we venture forth - But for some reason we don't engage on matters 
regarding whether the applicant actually hires people who know how to 
fly or whether there are mechanics who know how to properly maintain 
aircraft and use proper parts.  Instead we focus on the ticket counter 
as the criteria of eligibility.

So we allow new airline applicants in they promise that nobody will wait 
longer than 5 minutes in a ticket line and that we will never sell a 
ticket to anyone who has a name the same as that of a movie star.

Now, that, if removed to the context of DNS, is ICANN.

I know that my .ewe TLD ( 
http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000159.html ) has about as much 
chance of being approved by ICANN as Miami has of being overrun by 
galloping glaciers.

I am willing to promise that I will run the name servers in accord with 
all broadly accepted published internet technical standards.

What god, or more importantly, through what clear legal path of 
authority, has ICANN obtained the ability to say that I may not risk my 
own money to try to establish .ewe on the internet?  Through what clear 
legal path or authority has ICANN been given the ability to define what 
my business structure should be and what rules I should impose on my 
customers, particularly since ICANN can articulate no reason why those 
structures or rules have any relationship to the technical stability of 
the internet.

What is the technical stability of the internet, at least in regard to 
ICANN's mission?

ICANN was created with the explicit promise that it would ensure that 
the DNS system would be stable - which means that it will efficiently 
and continuously resolve name query packets into name response packets 
with neither bias for nor against any query source or query content.

But ICANN has not done that.  We internet users are running at risk. 
Our only protection is the good action of several actors, such as root 
server operators, who are under now obligation to continue such good action.

In other words, we hired ICANN to be a fireman, but we got a stockbroker 
instead - an a rather expensive one.  By my calculations, ICANN is 
pumping, in the form of inflated registry fees, several hundred millions 
of dollars (US) out of the pockets of domain name buyers and into the 
bank accounts of Verisign and other registry operators each and every year.

One might say "Oh no, we really wanted ICANN to ensure stability of the 
name registration systems and protect marks" - to which I must ask: What 
in the world does that have to do with the *technical* stability of the 
net?  And if ICANN was meant to be trademark protection agency, then we 
have to ask why is that job not better left to the traditional 
mechanisms for that kind of thing?

And if ICANN was intended for that purpose, then who in the world is 
ensuring that DNS query packets are efficiently, quickly, and fairly 
turned into DNS response packets?  And who is going to be accountable 
should that cease?

And there is this rather important matter:

1. ICANN is a combination: It is a forum in which those who have 
"stake", mainly as defined by those incumbents who make money from 
domain name sales or who have an interest in restricting the use of 
certain names, typically those used in commerce as trade and service marks.

AND

2. ICANN restrains trade: ICANN says who may and who may not go into the 
domain name business at all levels - one can not be a registrar without 
ICANN permission, one can not be a registry without ICANN permission. 
ICANN imposes a particular business model (registry-registrar), and sets 
many of the important terms of the customer contract (whois, a registry 
fee, an ICANN fee, minimum and maximum duration, etc.)

Now when we put those together we have this: A combination in restraint 
of trade.

Is it an illegal combination in restraint of trade?  I don't know.  But 
I do know that that question needs to be asked in every nation that has 
laws on such matters in which ICANN has an adequate jurisdictional 
contact - which is just about every nation.

It's time for ICANN to realize that its experiment in new-age controlled 
economies - an experiment that has unnerving similarities to the central 
planning system of the now defunct USSR - is a failure.

On the business side, ICANN has prevented competition except in details, 
and prices are still much higher than they need to be due to ICANN's 
fiat registry fees.  Privacy has been sacrificed along the way.

And yet through all of this, if the internet's DNS should burn down, or 
be attacked, or fail through administrative screw-up - in other words, 
if the DNS lights go out - ICANN's only response will be "not our problem".

		--karl--