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

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

Thomas:

The question you ask below is of course is the question we need to be 
discussing seriously. 

It is obviously wrong to recognize any and every claim, just
because someone boots up a computer and calls it a root server.
It is equally wrong to ignore the pre-assignment of TLDs in other roots 
that have thousands of customers and meet certain technical standards. \
A rational, pro-market, pro-Internet ICANN wold define an objective
procedure and set of standards for getting into the root.

If ICANN were not a dysfunctional organization, overly 
influenced by people re-fighting battles from 1996, it would welcome
this discussion. 

One reason this discussion is important - and the main reason current
ICANN staff doesn't want to deal with it - is that recognition of any
claims made independently of the ICANN process serves as a significant
check on the abuse of ICANN's power. 

If entrepreneurs and other organizations acting independently can
establish recongizable claims to operate TLDs that might go into
the ICANN root, then ICANN is required to act only as a technical 
coordinator; i.e., to ensure a consistent root zone. 
ICANN wants to have all the power: it wants to announce when new TLDs 
will be created, what names they will use, what policies they will enforce, 
and who will get them. 

>>> Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org> 06/18/01 06:37PM >>>
So let's look.  What precisely are your criteria for a TLD which 
should belong to the zoo of "valid" TLDs, as opposed to 
misconfigured intranets?  What precisely is your criterion for a TLD 
which can be taken seriously?  Just that this TLD made it into some 
alt.root's root zone?



--
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