RE: [ga] New TLD Paradigm

["Michael D. Palage" <Michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Karl,

Always good to hear from you. I understand your concerns about the
politicalization of a technical coordinating body.  Unfortunately some
of the issues you raise about ICANN's legitimacy are outside the scope
of this email exchange, and best left to be discussed in a more casual
setting while drinking some nice California wine.

In responding to your scenario about adding new TLDs to root I have
chosen to use the analogy of trains instead of airplanes.  I use that
analogy because I hope your restoration of that old engine is
progressing along nicely, and many people complain that ICANN's is not
very good at making the trains run on time.

Prior to the US. Civil War, there were multiple gauge tracks within the
states that made transporting cargo difficult. Congress imposed the
current 4 feet, eight and a half inch standard to help promote the
interoperability of transit along the rail system. Thus ICANN when
adding new TLDs at a minimum needs to make sure the registry operator
will ensure its packets travel in a uniform and predicable pattern. On
this we agree.

One of the things that I was amazed during my first year in law school
was how much tort law evolved in connection with the railroad system.
>From liability in connection with rail road crossing deaths to
accidental fires started from the embers discharged by an engine's smoke
stack.

Similarly, technical coordination does unfortunately stop with a uniform
track gauge. Additional technical requirements which have public policy
considerations begin to become intertwined, i.e. railroad set backs,
lights and bells at crossing, etc.

That is the reality of where ICANN currently finds itself. If ICANN were
to allow the operation of any engines that met the minimum technical
criteria of a standard gauge that would not be good, because the ensuing
complications (accidents, lawsuits, etc.) would probably lead to ICANN's
demise. Although ICANN still tries my patience at times, I still have
faith in the bottom up consensus model, that me, you, Louis and others
rallied around back in 1999. 

Although I respect your position that any TLD meeting minimum technical
requirements should be added to the root (assuming the USG approves the
recommendation of ICANN/IANA), I am trying to find a middle ground where
new TLDs can be added to the root in an open, transparent and PREDICABLE
manner. Unfortunately the GAC (Public Policy Consideration) elephant is
never going to leave the room after the last 2004 sTLD. Although some
may say that ICANN does not need to listen to the GAC, as ICANN is
merely making decisions on technical matters, from my perspective there
is not much that ICANN can do without having political ramifications.

Thus having a TLD process where there are baseline technical criteria,
coupled with minimum public policy safeguards, is a much better place to
me than a rails system, where the governments are telling us what make
and model of train we can use, what trains we need to ride, where we
need to sit, and what cargo (packets) the train can carry.

Thanks again for the feedback, and was good to hear from you again.

Best regards,

Michael






-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:40 AM
To: Michael D. Palage
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD Paradigm


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--