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

["Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>]

Yes, this is definitely a final draft proposal.
Unanimously approved.
 
Dominik

________________________________

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of kidsearch
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 4:10 PM
To: Jeff Williams; Karl Auerbach
Cc: Liz Williams; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; icann board address; icann staff;
gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; GNSO/DNSO Council
Subject: Re: [ga] new TLDs Report: Further options for input


But this is how it should read so it's closer to how ICANN actually
operates.
 
To wit: 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 (status quo),
reliability (status quo), security (for IP interests, ISPs, Registries,
and Registrars), and global inoperability of the Internet.
 
2. Respecting the creativity (of trademarks), innovation (of trademark
holders), and flow of information (to and from IP Interests and ICANN
BoD and Staff behind closed doors) made possible by the Internet (and
ICANN's Staff) by (not) limiting ICANN's activities to those matters
within ICANN's mission.
 
3. To the extent feasible and appropriate, delegating coordination
functions to or recognizing the policy role of other irresponsible
entities that reflect the interests of affected parties, (meaning IP
Interests, ISPs, Registrars, and Registries).
 
4. Seeking and supporting (the elimination of) 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 an anti-competitive environment where IP interests,
Registrars, Registries, ISPs, and Domain Tasters can do whatever they
like regardless of the harm caused to users.
 
6. Limiting the Introduction of new TLDs and promoting non-competitive
and monopolistic practices in the registration of domain names where
practicable and beneficial to IP Interests, Registrars, and Registries.
 
7. Not Employing any open and transparent policy development mechanisms
that (i) promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and
(ii) only ensuring that those entities most affected, (ie; Registrars,
Registries, ISPs, IP Interests, and Domain Tasters) can assist in the
policy development process behind closed doors.
 
8. Making decisions by ignoring public comment and documented policies,
while being partial to and favoring IP Interests, Registries,
Registrars, and ISPs, without objectivity, integrity or fairness.
 
9. Acting slowly in responding to the needs of Internet Users while, as
part of the decision-making process, obtaining informed input from those
entities most affected, like IP interests, Registrars, Registries, ISPs,
and Domain Tasters who are willing to wine and dine board members and
staff..
 
10. Remaining unaccountable to the Internet community through
eliminating mechanisms that enhance ICANN's effectiveness such as the
GA.
 
11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that the
US government and public authorities are responsible for public policy
and duly abiding by the US governments' or public authorities'
directives, but by no means ever paying attention to the millions of
users and domain registrants around the world and their needs.
 
12. Stifling Innovation nad competition by allowing IP Interests to
limit new TLDs, allowing Registries and Registrars to bilk the public
out of millions of dollars daily, and allowing practices such as domain
tasting shall be the cornerstone of ICANN's core values because it
allows Board Members and Staff to enjoy a lifestyle they feel they
deserve.
 
Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://www.articlecontentprovider.com
 

 
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
To: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Cc: "Liz Williams" <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx> >; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >; "icann board address"
<icann-board@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:icann-board@xxxxxxxxx> >; "icann staff"
<icann-staff@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:icann-staff@xxxxxxxxx> >;
<gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >;
"GNSO/DNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:50 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] new TLDs Report: Further options for input


> Karl, Liz, and all,
> 
> ICANN's "Core Values" as defined in ICANN's bylaws:
> http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#ISection
<http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#ISection> 
> 
> To wit:
> 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.
> 
> These core values are deliberately expressed in very general terms,
> so that they may provide useful and relevant guidance in the broadest
> possible range of circumstances. Because they are not narrowly
> prescriptive, the specific way in which they apply, individually and
> collectively, to each new situation will necessarily depend on many
> factors that cannot be fully anticipated or enumerated; and because
> they are statements of principle rather than practice, situations will
> inevitably arise in which perfect fidelity to all eleven core values
> simultaneously is not possible.  Any ICANN body making a
> recommendation or decision shall exercise its judgment to determine
> which core values are most relevant and how they apply to the
> specific circumstances of the case at hand, and to determine, if
> necessary, an appropriate and defensible balance among competing
> values.
> 
> =================================================================
> 
>  So it seems that what Karl and Liz have here is a situation
> of "competing values" and the report indicating that the determination
> is more slanted towards "Social Values" of some undefined sort
> are most relevant and how they apply to the specific circumstances 
> of determining new TLDs.  
> 
>  I side with Karl to the extent that "Social Values" of any sort
> as a relevant determining factor as to the introduction of new TLDs
> if folly as there is as far as I know, and have been alive, no
> distinct set of "Social Values" in the US that would indicate
> any reasonable factor in the stability or social fabric disruption
> of significance, nor same for any other country.  There ARE however,
> political parties and factions in the US and many other counties
> where "Social Values" as may be represented in the DNS and/or 
> as TLDs would be very disconcerting and/or disruptive, i.e. .XXX...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karl Auerbach wrote:
> 
>> Liz Williams wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> I made a very specific suggestion in my prior email, that all
material
>> not clearly related to technical requirements to the ability of the
>> upper tier of DNS to turn DNS query packets into DNS reply packets be
>> erased.
>>
>> That would require virtually all of the content of the report to be
erased.
>>
>>    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.
>>
>> The report is the result of industry incumbents talking to industry
>> incumbents, with the door open to the intellectual property industry.
>>
>> Most of us were excluded.
>>
>> By-the-way the report that you posted is missing its last 10 pages,
>> including the Annex 2 you mention that perhaps contains the list of
>> those who are purported to have contributed.
>>
>> This report is nothing more than a continuation of the highly
>> incumbent-protective process that we saw in year 2000.  Indeed,
because
>> it has no basis in technical necessity it is really no less arbitrary
>> and capricious than ICANN's decision to reject TLD applicants simply
>> because some board members had trouble pronouncing the letter
sequence
>> of the proposed TLD.
>>
>> As I have said, this report can not articulate that there is any
>> relationship between the restrictions it proposes and the technical
>> measures needed to maintain the technical stability of the upper
tiers
>> of the DNS.
>>
>> For all its pretentious format - albeit not yet on glossy paper with
>> cutesy photographs like a Gartner report - this report fails to tell
us,
>> the users of the internet, how these proposals will result in an
>> internet that is more stable, more open to competition, and costs
less
>> than the several hundred millions of dollars we now spend every year
on
>> domain names.
>>
>> Indeed, from the point of view of internet users this report seems
>> merely to pour more concrete around the ICANN status quo and
preserves
>> the present day incumbent TLD registries and the supra-legal rights
>> accorded by ICANN to the trademark industry.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Ah the "core values".  Perhaps you ought to look to the statements
that
>> ICANN has made in its corporate documents and its statements to the
US
>> government in its tax filings.  Those differ substantially from
ICANN's
>> highly self-congratulatory "core values".
>>
>> Moreover, no matter what ICANN might say in its "core values" ICANN
does
>> not have the legal authority to be a body that leverages its de facto
>> monopoly position over the only really viable DNS marketplace to
engage
>> in social engineering, regulates businesses and their products, or
>> protect consumers against sharp business practices or business
failures.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Superficial and disingenuous?  Is it superficial and disingenuous to
>> note that ICANN can not articulate any specific legal authority that
>> gives ICANN the legal right to use its position over the domain name
>> marketplace to impose its view of social and economic policy?
>>
>> Is superficial and disingenuous to note that this report does nothing
>> for the users of the internet except to extend the status quo, a
status
>> quo that costs them over $300,000,000 each year in excessive domain
name
>> costs and subjects them to trademark protective contractual terms
that
>> go beyond the laws adopted by national legislatures and requires them
to
>> abandon the privacy rights accorded them by their national
governments?
>>
>> Is it superficial and disingenuous to note that ICANN's own "core
>> values" were adopted by a board that was lacking any component chosen
by
>> the community of internet users?
>>
>> And is it superficial and disingenuous to note that the contents of
this
>> proposal do not one whit for the technical stability of the DNS?
>>
>> I would suggest that the mirror goes the opposite direction - that
the
>> authors and proponents of this report have come to believe in their
own
>> glamour and have decided that the internet, or rather their financial
>> stake in it, is best protected by imposing a regulatory regime that
>> would make most governmental bureaucrats turn yellow with envy.
>>
>> When ICANN was formed it cast itself as nothing more than dealing
with
>> the "technical stability" of the internet; ICANN swore up and down on
a
>> stack of bibles that that was its limited role.
>>
>> Yet today, and implicitly your own admission, ICANN does virtually
>> nothing that has any technical component whatsoever except through
the
>> most tenuous of ancillary linkages.
>>
>> As for "stakeholders" - ICANN long ago demonstrated that it is based
on
>> a highly selective choice of who has "stake" and who does not.
>>
>> As I have said on many instances, and which has never been
contradicted,
>> were ICANN to vanish into a cloud of money-colored smoke, the
internet
>> would continue to work, not a packet would fail to reach its
>> destination, domain name businesses would continue to operate, users
>> would happily use and providers would happily provide.
>>
>> What would happen, however, is that those who wish to provide new
>> services in the domain name space - really different services and
>> methods such as I offer in .ewe (see
>> http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000159.html
<http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000159.html>  )- would come
about
>> and the profits of some of the "stakeholders" that ICANN protects
would
>> be subjected to real competitive pressures and the intellectual
property
>> industry might find that it has to use the legal systems of the
world.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> The committee did not even bother to define what is meant by
stability.
>>
>> I have defined it - the ability of the upper tiers of dns to
>> efficiently, accurately, and promptly transform DNS query packets
into
>> DNS response packets without prejudice for or against any query
source
>> or query subject.
>>
>> ICANN's own contract with Verisign similarly defines stability in
terms
>> of packet flows, in that case between applications.
>>
>> And virtually nothing in this report has any grounding in either of
>> these definitions.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> It is pretty clear that this is going to be resolved in other fora.
>>
>> In some cases those who want part of the domain name pie are going to
>> bring legal actions against ICANN and those vendors that have
>> participated in the creation of these policies that are so clearly
>> designed to restrain competition and are lacking any foundation in
>> technical necessity.  This may occur in the US, it may occur in
Europe,
>> it may occur in any of the 250 other jurisdictions of the world in
which
>> these rules are found to contradict national policy against
combinations
>> in restraint of trade.
>>
>> In some cases nations will simply find that the domain name can
actually
>> be fractured into separate, but overlapping, domain name systems.
>>
>>                         --karl--
> 
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
> "Obediance 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 <mailto:jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> Registered Email addr with the USPS
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827