Re: [council] Demonstrating Pre-Existing Polices

["erica" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

thanks Louis - this is very helpful.
I agree that any claim that 'x is a pre-existing policy' needs to be
supported by clear documentary evidence.  It is therefore important to cite
chapter and verse of relevant documents when any claim of this type is made.
This will help us distinguish between what policies pre-dated the creation
of ICANN and what some advocate hoped policy would become (or thought it
was).
However, my question relates to the composition of the relevant pool of
documents.  I'm a bit surprised that you include the Green paper in this.  I
guess it could be used to throw some light on the meaning of some sections
of the White paper, but since the Green paper was a discussion paper, I
don't see how it could be deemed an authoritative policy doc.
Having said that, I accept that it is not always easy todefine what can and
cannot be deemed  an authoritative policy doc and what precisely, can be
derived from them.
Let me try an example that has arisen recently:
There has been some discussion (protest) about a recent ICANN doc that
suggests there are currently four global commercial TLD. This classification
seems to conflict with RFP 1591 which distinguishes between two
classifications  - generic TLDs and country code TLDs.  Given that all TLDs
resolve globally, it would not seem to be consistant with RFC 1591) to imply
in any way that gTLDs can be distinguished as global TLDs  (with the
implication that ccTLDs are not global).  Any new classification system
strikes me as a a very significant part of any policy framework.
However, I guess my real question is whether, on the basis of RFP 1591, we
can assume that it is pre-existing policy to classify TLD into two basic
types - generic TLDs, and country code TLDs?  Obviously, if this is true,
then the corollary,  that 'it is contrary to ICANN policy to describe a gTLD
as a global TLD' would also be true.
Please be assured that I'm not trying to score any points here.  Rather,
what I am trying to do is to highlight the difficulties in determining just
what can and cannot be deemed to be pre-existing policy.  The question
relates not only to the documentary evidence but also to what is, and is
not, a policy issue.   I appreciate the difficulties here, but the issue is
an important one which goes to the role of the NC.  Without clarification
(from staff, the Bod and/or NC??), this could prove something of a time bomb
for us all.  I see benefit in diffusing it early  rather than waiting  for
it to explode at some later date.

regards,
erica




----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Touton" <touton@icann.org>
To: <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 1:00 PM
Subject: [council] Demonstrating Pre-Existing Polices


> Erica,
>
> To state the proposition most directly, to demonstrate what policies
> were in place at ICANN's inception one should look to the evidence that
> illuminates events occurring at or before ICANN's formation.
> Ordinarily, documentary evidence will be the strongest, since it is not
> subject to shifting recollections and the like.  This includes not only
> ICANN's formation documents (Green and White Papers, Articles, bylaws,
> etc.) but also such documents as RFCs, IANA news memos, and other
> documents that record policies that were followed.  One should be
> careful to distinguish between what policy existed and what some
> advocate hoped the policy would become.
>
> I hope this is helpful to you.
>
> Louis
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Finalization of "A Unique, Authoritative Root
> for  theDNS"]
> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:19:08 +0800
> From: "erica" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>
> To: "Louis Touton" <touton@icann.org>, <council@dnso.org>
> References: <3B4B40EC.33F58001@icann.org>
>
> I am increasingly confused about ICANN policy and would appreciate
> clarification of how to determine what policies were in place previous
> to
> ICANN's creation.
> I assume that any claim that something is a pre-exisitng policy must be
> evidenced by reference to the Articles, By-laws or RFPs.
> However, this is clearly a foundational issue that requires
> clarification.
> Louis: Can you assist in this please.
>
> erica