ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

Karl

You can see that I was referring specifically to the Report -- I have not seen any suggestions about language to improve the Report as it stands. The Report is the result of more than a year of consultations with, amongst many, technical experts, legal advisors, interested potential applicants, governments and the private sector. If you refer to Annex 2 of the Report you will see a comprehensive list of participants which will form part of the Board Report.

If you refer to ICANN's Mission and Core Values, you will see that there are other matters which need to be taken into account in addition to the prime importance of technical stability. I have copied the full list here for completeness. You will note Core Vales 4, 5 & 6 as being specifically non-technical and which are addressed in the Principles and the Recommendations section of the Report.

You will also note CV 7, 8, 9 and 10 which are also not technical and which are manifest in the way in which the policy development process has been conducted.

You will note CV 11 which obliges us to take account of government recommendations. That is manifest in the ongoing discussions about public policy principles and the introduction of new TLDs.

It is superficial and disingenuous to describe ICANN's mission as only technical when it is clearly evident that the picture is much more complex, involves a wide array of input and consultation with a diverse range of stakeholders.

Finally, if you had read the Report in full, you would have understood the ongoing focus on the stability and security of the Internet is of prime importance to the Committee -- Core Value 1.

I am happy to receive any further suggestions for language that improves the Report and look forward to the participation of the GA List members at the upcoming ICANN meetings -- either in person or virtually.

Liz
from http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#I

"Section 2. CORE VALUES

In performing its mission, the following core values should guide the decisions and actions of ICANN:

1. Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet.

2. Respecting the creativity, innovation, and flow of information made possible by the Internet by limiting ICANN's activities to those matters within ICANN's mission requiring or significantly benefiting from global coordination.

3. To the extent feasible and appropriate, delegating coordination functions to or recognizing the policy role of other responsible entities that reflect the interests of affected parties.

4. Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making.

5. Where feasible and appropriate, depending on market mechanisms to promote and sustain a competitive environment.

6. Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest.

7. Employing open and transparent policy development mechanisms that (i) promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and (ii) ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development process.

8. Making decisions by applying documented policies neutrally and objectively, with integrity and fairness.

9. Acting with a speed that is responsive to the needs of the Internet while, as part of the decision-making process, obtaining informed input from those entities most affected.

10. Remaining accountable to the Internet community through mechanisms that enhance ICANN's effectiveness.

11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations."


.....................................................

Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob




On 20 Mar 2007, at 11:05, Karl Auerbach wrote:

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--



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>