Re: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

On 2001-06-14 15:42:10 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

>On the contrary, I think the statement should be strengthened, for 
>exactly the reason that the Tucows representative gave: to give 
>any deference whatsoever to alternate root providers would simply 
>encourage avoidance of the ICANN process.  Right now the big 
>players don't do alternate roots for two reasons: 1) they realize 
>the technical instabilities it would create; and 2) even more 
>important, they realize the total chaos that would prevail if 
>ICANN gave any credence whatsoever to alternate roots.

These are strong and good arguments why ICANN should establish a 
policy to ignore alternate roots.  But they are NOT arguments which 
say that ICANN has already done so in the past.

>>I can prove easily that there is no policy: ICANN has explicitly 
>>avoided a conflict in the case of .WEB, and it has created a 
>>conflict in the case of .BIZ.

>You have a pretty weak notion of "proof".  If anything, what we 
>have is clear proof that ICANN has simply been following a policy 
>of ignoring any precedent set by alternate roots.

A policy or a custom?  There's certainly a difference between the 
two concepts.  In particular, a policy would have to come from a 
pretty well-defined process.  Opposed to that, a custom just means 
that "we have always done it this way".

I don't believe that blurring the line between the two concepts is 
helpful at all - in particular given the formal role consensus 
xpolicies play in the entire ICANN process.

>It is undeniable fact that there is a long and continuous history 
>of rejection of alternate roots, a history that preceeded ICANN by 
>years. And it is I believe completely obvious that what the Tucows 
>representative said is true: any deference to any alternate root 
>would instantly open the floodgates, and worldwide there would be 
>thousands of new alternate tlds immediately insisting on 
>recognition.

There isn't much serious disgareement on this - with two exceptions:

- ICANN may wish to pay special attention to .WEB.  It may, however, 
   only pay this special attention when it makes abundantly clear 
   why it is doing so, and that this won't be repeated with more 
   recent instances of alterantive TLDs.

- Not paying attention to the alternate TLDs isn't sufficient to 
   keep the floodgates closed.  ICANN MUST speed up the TLD addition 
   process, because otherwise new.net-like business models could 
   become more and more interesting.

   Once that is the case, alternate TLDs may create destructive 
   capacities against any colliders ICANN may add later.  Thus, 
   ICANN would be forced into paying special attention to these 
   players, which would in turn further weaken the floodgates.
   
   We can only hope that new.net isn't the first such case.

Cheers,
-- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html