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

["M. Stuart Lynn" <lynn@icann.org>]

Dear Milton:

Thank you for your note. Comments interspersed below. Stuart

At 5:55 PM -0400 6/15/01, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Stuart:
>I see (and I'm sure everyone else does as well) that you have
>not addressed my question.

***I am looking for a question in your earlier posting but only can 
see a series of statements. Which particular statement would you 
rather phrase as a question?

You do say "We must not confuse the question of whether there is a prior
policy with the question of WHAT the policy should be". Perhaps that 
is what you are referring to. And I agree with you that those two 
questions should not be confused. But that does not change my view 
that there is a prior policy. And incidentally, that view is 
apparently shared by many, many people who have spoken -- mostly at 
Stockholm -- with or written to me and thanked me for writing the 
draft. And to be sure there are others who take the opposite 
viewpoint.

>
>Reiterating your adherence to a "single authoritative
>root" does not provide any guidance as to whether new TLDs
>added to ICANN's root should or should not avoid conflict with
>TLDs in use by other roots. In either case, one could say one is
>adhering to a single, authoritative root.

****That is an interesting distinction but one which, in my view 
glosses over a major point. My paper does not assert that ICANN would 
purposely grant the same TLD name to one that already exists in an 
alternate root. Neither, on the other hand,  did it say that it would 
purposely avoid doing so. What it in effect said is that it would be 
erroneous for any alternate (pseudo or otherwise) root operator to 
*assume* that ICANN would necessarily avoid doing so. What the draft 
effectively says is that ICANN's orderly decision process (always, of 
course, subject to improvement) operating within its public trust 
would not be preempted by actions taken by others operating outside 
of the public trust. That is, do not assume that by creating a TLD 
within an alternate root, you receive credit with ICANN's own 
processes and can thereby tie ICANN's hands.

****To put it another way. ICANN has no policy asserting that it will 
give credit to any TLD created outside of ICANN's processes. Which 
means precisely that ICANN can give no credit to any TLD created 
outside of ICANN's processes. Which is what I wrote.

*****By my reading, however, the White Paper does in fact provide 
guidance on this point. It repeatedly refers to the need for 
decisions about new TLDs to be coordinated in a way that is 
accountable to the community (in so many words). Simply allowing any 
alternate root to preempt names hardly sounds like such 
accountability to me. What would stop such a root from choosing all 
the nouns in Webster's and any other dictionary to preempt future 
competition? Where would community accountability and coordination be 
in such a case?

*****We now have interesting situations where, quite independently of 
ICANN, there is conflict between most of new.net's names and names in 
other alternate roots. This is the expected result of a regime where 
root-zone decisions are made in an uncoordinated fashion by companies 
based on their individual commercial concerns. Given the incentive 
for a better-financed commercial actor to muscle aside a weaker one, 
the result of this lack of coordination is name conflicts that 
certainly does not make for a stable DNS.

****Perhaps the language in my draft needs to be clarified and indeed 
strengthened in this regard. I'll take a look at it. Thank you for 
making the point.

>
>But since the object of your "discussion draft" was to pre-empt
>discussion rather than to faciliitate it, I see that you are being
>quite consistent.

****That is an assertion for which I would like to see your 
foundation, since the assertion is absolutely false. Once again, you 
are impugning motives to me without checking with me first -- there 
is no way you can know my motives unless I tell you. In fact, not 
only did I expect and welcome discussion within a community that is 
not known to be reticent, but I have clearly provoked it. That is no 
surprise to me whatsoever. I would have been more disappointed by the 
absence of discussion. And, incidentally, I have received a number of 
very constructive comments on the draft, many of which I hope to 
reflect in the final version.

>
>I agree with Brett Fausetts statement. The issue now has
>more to do with process. DNSO process has broken down
>on every serious policy issue. You have contributed to that.

***Interesting assertion, but again no foundation. (1) I am not sure 
I would agree with the assertion that the DNSO process has in fact 
broken down, although I am sure there is always room for improvement 
as with any part of ICANN. (2) I do understand, though, that you 
voted in favor of the Names Council resolution that declared that 
"the Names Council considers that multiple roots are outside the 
scope of the DNSO", a resolution that seems at odds with positions 
you had expressed in earlier emails. Apparently you were convinced by 
your colleagues.  I think you are trying to assign responsibility to 
*me* for the fact that apparently you were unable to persuade your 
Names Council colleagues to share your original point of view. 
Perhaps *you* should take responsibility yourself for not being 
sufficiently convincing.

>
>Let me recall, Stuart, when we first met in Washington, you
>argued that the revision of the Verisign contracts was not a
>change in policy either. You argued that you did not need the
>consent or approval of the Names Council.
>
>Fortunately, the NC ignored that and passed a resolution calling
>for changes in the agreement. Your patrons at the Commerce Dept
>and FTC seemed to agree with the NC, didn't they? That "non-policy"
>issue attracted serious attention from the US executive branch
>and is still attracting serious attention from the US Congress.
>
>Your credibility is eroding.


****Your "spin" of what transpired seriously jumbles the facts.

****The Board, of which I subsequently became a member, reviewed the 
VeriSign contract revisions and concluded that they did not 
constitute a policy revision. And I certainly agreed with the 
majority of the Board (even though I was not a member at the time of 
the Melbourne meeting, the Board implicitly reemphasized its decision 
at its subsequent meeting when I was a member). The Board, however, 
did ask the community, including the Names Council, for comment 
during a 30-day comment period, not because it was a policy matter, 
but because the Board likes to receive input from the community 
whenever it can. The Names Council ignored nothing -- the NC's input 
was specifically solicited in a Board resolution and was responsive 
to that resolution. The NC  provided helpful comments that they 
regarded as being essential to a "win-win" situation. I and other 
members of the ICANN staff worked hard to incorporate as many of 
those comments a possible, and subsequent negotiations (right up to 
the last) resulted in most of them being incorporated into the final 
agreements. The NC input was very helpful.

****In this case, the ICANN processes worked really well. I sense you 
might have been happier had we gone ahead with signing the agreements 
and obtaining ultimate DoC approval without incorporating any of the 
NC suggestions. Then you really and justifiably could have criticized 
the results.
>
>
>>>>  "M. Stuart Lynn" <lynn@icann.org> 06/15/01 12:17PM >>>
>
>[childish insult deleted]

****The smiley face at the end indicated a joke. Please do not 
consider it an insult. On the other hand, do you consider it mature 
behavior to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest?

>
>The basis for the statement that ICANN's policy is to support a
>single authoritative root is extensively articulated in my document
>and the references clearly cited. The White Paper, the Memorandum of
>Understanding, and the Articles of Incorporation give clear
>indication of ICANN's Policy. They are ICANN's charter documents. I
>suggest you read them again. They are not very hard to understand and
>their statements with regard to an authoritative single root and to
>competing roots are quite clear. My statement on ICANN Policy is not
>unilateral -- it is well-grounded in the community processes that led
>to the White Paper and to the formation of ICANN.
>
>
>At 6:02 PM -0400 6/14/01, Milton Mueller wrote:
>>Stuart:
>>
>>I would request that you modify your statement to indicate that there
>  >currently is NO stated consensus policy on the adoption of TLD
>>assignments by ICANN that are in use in alternate or competing roots.
>  >
>>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. Both decisions were off-the-cuff ones made by the Board in
>>November. But there is no documented policy process that would explain
>  >why they avoided conflict in one instance and not in another.
>  >

-- 

__________________
Stuart Lynn
President and CEO
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: 310-823-9358
Fax: 310-823-8649
Email: lynn@icann.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