Re: [council] Re: Finalization of "A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS"
- To: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
- Subject: Re: [council] Re: Finalization of "A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS"
- From: "Joe Sims" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 09:22:03 -0400
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, karl@CaveBear.com, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, vcerf@MCI.NET
- Sender: email@example.com
Milton, why do you think that the existence of policy for ICANN can only
come from "past DNSO processes?" There are any number of policies that
precede the creation of ICANN, and that ICANN inherited, of which support
for a single authoritative root is only one. Most of IANA's operating
policies fit this description, as do the delegation policies set forth in
ICP-1(which, by the way, notes that it is intended as a basis for further
discussion, as did Stuart's paper). ICP-3 does exactly what ICP-1 did:
restate received policy in a modern and more comprehensive form. As any
number of people have now suggested, if you think the policy is incorrect,
you should seek to change it rather than try to pretend it is not there.
Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
51 Louisiana Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Direct Phone: 1.202.879.3863
Direct Fax: 1.202.626.1747
Mobile Phone: 1.703.629.3963
<Mueller@syr.edu To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>,
Sent by: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>,
owner-council@dn <karl@CaveBear.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
so.org <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
07/10/01 05:04 <email@example.com>,
Subject: [council] Re: Finalization of "A
Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS"
>>> vint cerf <vcerf@MCI.NET> 07/10/01 09:05AM >>>
I believe the document states current policy - the unique, authoritative
part of the core design of the DNS and the basis for ICANN's responsibility
the creation of new TLDs.
If Stuart Lynn's paper really defined current policy
there would be no need for a new document to state it, nor
would there have been a need to solicit "comments and suggestions"
to help define it.
An existing policy could reference clear, explicit statements,
that already existed. It could refer to past DNSO processes
that explicitly dealt with the relationship between ICANN
and other roots.
No such documents exist. No such processes can be
As for RFC 2826, as I have noted countless times, all that says
is that you need a coordinated root. It doesn't say who coordinates
it, it doesn't say how it gets coordinated or what rules or
algorithms are used to do so. You could be RFC 2826-compliant
a) avoiding any TLD assignments that conflict with alternate roots
b) adding all alternate root assignments to the ICANN root
c) pretending that alt.roots don't exist
The lack of determinism is proof that no current policy exists.
I am still baffled as to why ICANN management seems to think
that Lynn's paper defines a policy that everyone supports
but is scared to death of allowing that policy to be developed
and ratified by the DNSO.
The preceding e-mail message (including any attachments) contains
information that may be confidential, be protected by the attorney-client
or other applicable privileges, or constitute non-public information. It
is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are
not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by
replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Use,
dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended
recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.