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

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

On 2001-06-15 12:41:54 -0700, M. Stuart Lynn wrote:

>ICANN has many policies that are embodied in our charter documents 
>that have not been separately and explicitly codified in a single 
>policy document. For example, we have a policy derived from those 
>documents that commit us to further the stability of the Internet.

"Stability of the Internet" is hardly a policy, but rather one of 
the basic principles underlying ICANN.

"Policy" seems to be understood by most of those who participate in 
this discussion as a reference to Art. III S. 3 (b) in the bylaws:

   (b) With respect to any policiues that are being considered by the 
   Board for adoption that substantially affect the operation of the 
   Internet or third parties [...], the Board will: [...]

Obviously, any policy with respect to alternative roots _is_ a 
policy affecting third parties, so I'd hope that the board takes 
care not to blur the line between a III 3 (b) policy and the board's 
interpretation of the white paper, which is obviously not shared by 
all members of the community.

>When there are important issues on the table, I will continue to 
>summarize existing policies that may be embodied in those 
>documents and elsewhere (including those that have been explicitly 
>stated) and articulate them for the community. Particularly - as 
>in this case - when I receive enquiries as to what our policy on a 
>given topic may be. That is part of my job.

While it seems to be pretty evident from some of the Stockholm 
discussions that certain powerful players want commitments from the 
board on the non-acceptance of alternative root operators (or else 
may start to operate alternative roots of their own), I find the 
procedure you have choosen quite bad: In fact, you are hardly trying 
to foster discussion in ICANN's policy-making bodies.  Instead, you 
are trying to declare a board commitment (which certainly happens 
with the very best intentions) as "policy", based on some rather 
weak arguments you rip out of the White and Green Papers.

>Articulating existing policies is very different from creating new 
>policy. That requires consensus-based approaches. And I do not 
>think any of us disagree on that.

Let's have a look what portions of the white and green papers you 
quote on alternative roots.


First, we have the green paper section which classifies 
Internet-related activities into "those that can be moved to a 
competitive system and those that should be coordinated".  "We then 
suggest the creation of a representative, not-for-profit corporation 
to manage the coordinated functions according to widely accepted 
objective criteria".

This section says that ICANN is necessary, and that it should 
coordinate certain functions.  However, it doesn't contain any 
micro-management of ICANN's coordination activities.  In particular, 
it doesn't say "please ignore the existing alternative roots".


Second, you quote the white paper's sentence that "the introduction 
of a new managmenet system should not disrupt current operations or 
create competing root systems".  This sentence is indeed listed as a 
principle to which ICANN should commit.  Thus, it is indeed the 
closest thing to a policy on alternative roots which is listed in 
the entire white paper.

But what does this sentence really say?  Does it say anything about 
how ICANN should handle TLDs which are registered in alternative 
root systems?  No.  

It just says that ICANN is has to avoid the creation of competing 
root systems, which is a different kind of requirement.  From the 
way in which the alternative roots are mentioned in an earlier 
portion of the white paper (experiments with visibility to only a 
small portion of internet users, which helped to foster discussion, 
and whose commercial activities are not endorsed), this section 
doesn't look like it alludes to those - in fact, one could even read 
all this to say that ICANN should work on including with the 
authoritative root the TLDs which were present in the alternative 
roots back then.  (One could also read this requirement as an 
allusion to Postel's Experiment.)


The third policy-like quote you use once again comes from the White 
paper (listed in the "The Need for Change" section): "As Internet 
names increasingly have commercial value, the decision to add new 
top-level domains cannot be made on an ad hoc basis by entities or 
individuals that are not formally accountable to the Internet 
community".

First question: "add" to what?  I'd say "to the authoritative root". 
Second, why does the white paper talk about "formal accountability"? 

 From the context, this could easily be interpreted to say that 
addition of gTLDs to the authoritative root must happen in a formal 
process, and not based on the deliberations of individuals.

In fact, this could once again be read (maybe misread?) as an 
allusion to Postel's Experiment - which, as you know, was on Jan 28 
1998, that is, two days before the Green Paper was published and 
half a year before the White Paper saw the light of the day.

But anyway, this quote once again only says that decisions to add 
new TLDs must be made following due process.  It does not say what 
kinds of objective deliberations should be part of this process, and 
whether or not particular attention should be paid to existing 
alternative roots.  (This is actually a good thing: ICANN may happen 
to encounter a situation in which an alternative TLD is so 
well-established that creating a competing incarnation of that TLD 
would cause actual damage and destroy both players.  In such a 
situation, ICANN would have to take alternative roots into account.)



Summarizing, I don't see an existing policy which could be derived 
 from the White paper and which prevents ICANN from taking existing 
non-ICANN TLDs into account when new TLDs are added to the 
authoritative root.

However, I do understand that you have to balance on a very thin 
line: ICANN must of course not activate the destructive powers of 
certain players.  However, ICANN also must not set precedents for 
policy which is actually invented by the board or the president.


Why not try to get the DNSO to produce an actual III 3 (b) policy on 
this matter, which addresses these questions?


-- 
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