Re: [council] Re: Finalization of "A Unique, AuthoritativeRoot for the DNS"

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]

Joe:
Everyone knows that you are playing word games. You created a
policy by fiat, then announced, without any formal process, that it
is a "restatement of existing policy." Your statement that ICP-3
"did exactly what ICP-1 did" is a typical of your, um, inaccuracy:
ICP-1 is a word-for word restatement of RFC 1591. Please provide me 
with the corresponding document for so-called "ICP-3."

Clearly, you have been shaken up a bit by the challenge of
New.net and felt the need to invent a policy to declare it 
"illegal" in ICANN's kangaroo court. The irony is that you have 
done no damage to New.net, you have simply damaged 
ICANN's credibility and its processes. Again.

Next time, before panicking try using ICANN's own processes.
You might be surprised at the results. Legitimately arrived-at 
policies don't tend to have significant numbers of groups within 
the process contesting their legitimacy.

Fiat-policy ICP-3 is irrelevant, anyway. ICANN still has no policy. 
Lynn's approach did not control your treatment of .web. When 
the time comes to adopt new TLDs, and New.net is still out there 
with hundreds of thousands of registrants in an alternate root, 
will you adopt a TLD that collides with it? 

Now that you have a definite policy you should be able to
answer "yes" or "no," eh? 

Indeed, since you believe this has ALWAYS been the policy 
since 1982, we've known the answer all along, right? 

So how come I need to ask this question? 

And how come Lynn couldn't answer it when I asked him
a few weeks ago?

>>> "Joe Sims" <jsims@jonesday.com> 07/11/01 09:22AM >>>

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.