Re[2]: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello NameCritic,

Sunday, June 17, 2001, 4:31:51 PM, NameCritic wrote:

> Ok, look. I am not suggesting every TLD in every root should be included by
> ICANN. What I am saying is that ICANN has not set any true standards for
> what a TLD operator must work by. They made personal judgement calls in the
> selection process that had nothing to do with any standard criteria for
> selection.

I am most please to hear you say that you do not support the "anything
goes" type setup that many here believe in, and advocate for.  I
consider that a real step in the right direction.

I know this is not what you want to hear, but I have to say that
patience is needed.  Since we don't want the anarchist anything goes
plan, that means we need a central authority, ala ICANN.  Now, let's
look at the issue of namespace expansion.

I wholeheartedly support an approach that will lead to an aggressive
expansion.  But I also recognized early on in this process that this
was NOT going to happen right away.  It was going to take YEARS.  The
fight to just get the initial expansion was one fought tooth and nail
against interests who want to see NO expansion in the namespace (this
includes many ccTLD operators, btw).  The only way to get it through
was to phase it in with a test bed.  A test bed almost ALWAYS has
higher standards than future rounds will.  And that was true here with
ICANN.  While I will readily agree that ICANN made several mistakes in
the standards they applied (for example, I am against mandatory
separation of Registry and Registrar for all TLDs), in order to just
GET the expansion happening, these were things I could live with.

Once the expansion happens, and the world doesn't come to an end, the
pressure that is already intense on ICANN (See the DoC letter for the
pressure from the USG alone) to expand the namespace in an aggressive
manner will become even more because it will be unable to use the
argument that new TLDs are a destabilizing factor.

NO ONE, certainly not me, believes ICANN is doing all right.  But to
be a part of the solution, one has to pick their battles and look at
the bigger picture.

And whatever you do, do not forget ANYTHING.

Remember it all, in the historical record.

For example, I'll never, NEVER trust Kent Crispin ever again.  In the
initial phases where the CORE gTLD-MoU camp started "coordinating" the
effort to develop the DNSO and its charter and structure, most all of
us distrusted them, all of them.  But they were being VERY
compromising, and seemingly sincere in making the DNSO more than just
a captured special interests group.

Then Kent Crispin and cohorts betrayed those who invested their time
and effort into getting a truly open structure for the DNSO that was
REALLY Responsive to the internet community, in exchange for stronger
support from the IP and business interests for a LIMITED expansion of
the namespace that would include one or more CORE run TLDs.  It
created a strong and effective voting block.  Sure the DoC "forced"
ICANN to make changes, but they were merely cosmetic.

It was only through vigilance that they failed to get things to happen
exactly as they wanted them to.

> They give a grace perios for dot biz for IP interests to get their domains
> before anyone else.
> Why not set up a time period for all tld owners who
> currently hold tlds in other roots but wish to be included in the legacy
> root to meet the set standards.

Different issue.  The trademark interests at least have an arguable
position and right with regard to the strings in question.

> There does not need to be a $50,000 fee to be qualified for inclusion.

I disagree.  I'll be honest.  For the initial rollout, it was
MANDATORY that the TLDs, registries, and those who are behind them, DO
NOT FAIL.  $50,000 presented a sizable barrier to make sure that only
those who could seriously do this get even involved.  I'm not saying
it should be $50,000 in the future, but you have to understand that
what happens in the future can't be assumed to be the same as the test
bed.  The issues will be vastly different then.

> Let
> $1 per domain name registration in the included tlds fund ICANN entirely.

I believe this is the current practice, but it might be slightly less,
with a cap I believe on the most a particular registrar's contribution
in percentage to the others.

> I don't care what any techie says. This is not a technical issue except
> where maybe the IETF help set the technical requirements for operating a
> TLD. It is a social and political issue that ICANN needs to resolve and this
> is NOT difficult to do.

Well, the problem with this is that while some people want technical
to be ONLY about EXACT technical stuff, in fact it needs to be about a
lot more.  Financial stability has a direct effect on the ability of
the organization to continue operations and not find themselves filing
chapter 11 two years from now.

The technical considerations that need to be considered also are the
consequences of a registry's failure, and what minimum financial and
other business related standards must exist to protect against that
happening to the best of their ability.

I suggest that a mandatory $100,000 performance bond be mandatory to
cover the costs of a registry being reassigned and to cover
transitional costs (which may include having to pay off certain bad
debts of the registry in order to keep services running smoothly until
the new registry can totally shift operations off).

> You see WXW and Dassa. I am not out to destroy ICANN. I am on the list to
> help find a way ICANN can perform it's functions in the manner of a
> nonprofit org that represents the users not as it has been acting as a for
> profit corp looking out for the IP Interests and the other corps. That is an
> area where I am comfortable in stating an opinion about and more than
> qualified to do so.

As someone who has had to deal with bureaucracy at its finest, all I
can say is that you have to face that change doesn't happen quickly.

And the best way to get the change is to recognize some of the
realities that can't be changed now, and completely dropping them in
order to focus on the things that CAN be changed.

That is not capitulation.  That is recognizing that the brick wall is
WAY Too thick to bust through with your head, and the best way to get
there is to tear it down, brick by brick, layer by layer.

-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

--
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