Re: [ga] new TLDs Report: Further options for input

[Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Liz Williams wrote:
> Dear GA Listers
>
> This is a general message in response to Danny Younger's posting 
> indicating that the updated draft version of the new TLDs Report had 
> been posted on the GNSO's website.  Unfortunately Danny didn't identify 
> where he thought the Report was "odious" and I am unable to divine what 
> improvements could be made in the absence of concrete suggestions and 
> proposed alternative language.

I must differ with your statement that there has been an absence of 
concrete suggestions.

There are vast improvements that could be made and they have been the 
subject of massive discussion and specific definition ever since well 
before 1997.

Much of those improvements are in the form of whitespace - empty 
blankness to replace existing text.

The most fundamental of all the changes is to reject all limitations on 
the creation of new TLDs that are not clearly grounded in compelling 
technical requirements that are clearly and directly related to the 
technical stability of the upper tiers of the DNS as measured in terms 
of the ability of those upper tiers to quickly, efficiently, and 
accurately transform DNS query packets into DNS response packets without 
prejudice for or against any query source or query subject.

Virtually nothing in the report has such a grounding.  In other words, 
pretty much everything after title of the report could be erased and 
result in a net (pun intended) improvement.

Anything in the report that lacks this grounding to matters of technical 
stability is simply social engineering.

If one does accept that ICANN is a social engineering body, and has the 
legal authority to do so (a dubious proposition), then one can engage in 
questions regarding whois.  But not all of us accept the idea that ICANN 
is a social engineering body; indeed ICANN's own self-description 
disavows such a role.

And if one goes even further an accepts that ICANN can and ought to 
impose economic policies, favoring selected industrial actors, and has 
the legal authority to do so (an even more dubious propisition), then 
one can engage in questions of business practices of those who wish to 
engage in DNS related businesses and the private law-equivalent 
obligations to impose (such as the UDRP and whois) on consumers of DNS 
products.  But again, not all of us accept that premise and ICANN's own 
self-description disavows it.

So one should not say that there have not been concrete statements. 
Danny has many many such statements; virtually all of which have been 
dropped into ICANN's enormous bit-bucket.  And what I just said above, 
which echoes what I and others have said many times before, that ICANN's 
TLD policies should be stripped of all requirements not related to 
technical matters is just such a concrete statement.  But just like 
Danny's suggestions, these too have fallen into the ICANN bit-bucket.

I have a top level domain - .ewe - and I am ready to put it into 
business - however, I will neither submit to ICANN's odious conditions, 
nor pay ICANN's extortionate fees for the privilege, nor subject my 
customers to ICANN's trademark-favoring contractual obligations.

This report, the point of view of an entrepreneur who is willing to risk 
his own money to deploy an idea, is nothing short of an agreement among 
incumbent interests and self-interested industrial actors (most 
particularly the trademark protection industry) to restrain and control 
the marketplace of domain names; to define product specifications, 
product prices, and product sales methods; and to limit the entry of new 
vendors.  In other words, this report is nothing short than an agreement 
among incumbent vendors to restrain trade.

		--karl--