From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #91 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Wednesday, April 19 2000 Volume 01 : Number 091 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 08:10:09 +0200 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Subject: MINC (Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT) At 09:43 17.04.2000 -0400, J. William Semich wrote: >NO - this is a matter for the private sector (www.minc.org) and the IETF to >work out. comment: IMHO, minc (the Multilingual Internet Name Consortium) is no more and no less private than ICANN. Both are private-law organizations in which government representatives take interest. Harald - -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 02:19:20 -0400 From: Paul Garrin Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs > > > > > If ICANN claims immunity from monopoly concerns as a result of its > > > government umbrella, I would wonder where the government agency involved > > > has the statutory power to grant such a monopoly right to make what, as I > > > mentioned above, is a purely policy decision that is devoid of any > > > technical content. > > > > The decision in Name.Space v. NSI depends on the acceptance/recognition > > by the court of the "statutory power" of the DoC to grant NSI immunity > > for their "conduct in this case". How would the situation differ under > > ICANN, since the issue of access to the root is essentially the same as > > it was in our antitrust claim against NSI? > > Your case was based on the power of NSF, as exercised by its successor > agency to the contract, NTIA with regard to a contract/cooperative > agreement with NSI. > > Here we have a situation in which NTIA, without any participation of NSF, > entered into a contract/cooperative agreement with ICANN. > > So as you see, the legal context is entirely distinct and different. > > --karl-- > Given that the NTIA's 9th inning play, to TAKE OVER the Cooperative Agreement from the NSF (in Sept. 1998) and write Amendment 11, was the decisive factor in the court's ability to "find" immunity for NSI, the legal context is NOT so distinct and different, in fact it's the SAME. The NTIA took over the contract because immunity under NSF was dubious at best. Given that the NSF is a government FUNDED agency, but not a government AGENCY as is the NTIA (see the law regarding so-called "federal instrumentality" and immunity) immunity under an agreement with the NSF would likely not apply. The decisive factor in the court's decision came not from the involvement of the NSF but precisely from the role assumed by the NTIA which minimized and superceded the role of the NSF. If the NTIA had not taken control of the Cooperative Agreement and the case remained between Name.Space and the NSF (and NSI), it is very unlikely that the court would have been able to "find" immunity for NSI. The DoJ knew this, NTIA knew this, and that is why the NTIA takeover of the CA was engineered--to bring NSI one notch up the hierarchy so as to come within the range of potential "federal instrumentality" immunity. The court did not exactly find NSI immune under their imaginitive defense of "federal insrtumentality" since finding such immunity would have been too broad, so the Appellate panel managed to cook up a "conduct-based" immunity to protect NSI's illegal conduct of breaking the antitrust laws by denying access to the root. The question remains however, does the statutory power exist within the NTIA to grant ICANN, NSI, or any other private company the monopoly right to make policy decisions that are devoid of any technical content? In our case, the court granted them that right. Will it stand up in the future? You can be sure that the NTIA will be right there to protect ICANN in the same way that they protected NSI in making just such policy decisions. regards, Paul ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:20:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs > Given that the NTIA's 9th inning play, to TAKE OVER the > Cooperative Agreement from the NSF (in Sept. 1998) and write > Amendment 11, was the decisive factor in the court's ability to > "find" immunity for NSI, the legal context is NOT so distinct and > different, in fact it's the SAME. You miss the point. NTIA, in your case, can (and did) claim to inherit the authority of NSF by virtue of its sucession to the NSF-NSI cooperative agreement. (The decision didn't really deal with this, but rather simply assumed it.) The situation with NTIA-ICANN is entirely different. There is no inheritance from NSF for the NTIA-ICANN contract or the entire NTIA-ICANN cozy relationship. Of course NTIA still has the old Cooperative agreement derived from NSF between it and NSI. But that that is a distinct agreement from what has transpired from NTIA via the green and white papers, its blessing of ICANN, and its contract with ICANN. (One ought to notice that *nowhere* in all of this is NSF, NTIA, or any agency of the US government, other than Congress itself, empowered to expand, or contract, the scope of trade and service marks.) > The NTIA took over the contract because immunity under NSF was dubious > at best. NSF's authority was at least grounded in a statute and the NSF-NSI cooperative agreement was entered into via a proper acquisition process. NTIA has zero statutory authority and claims to act merely on the basis of an Executive Order which, itself, is on dubious grounds. (The President can issue an Executive Order to make pigs fly, but unless there is a statute giving him/her power to make that order or there is a Constitutional basis, that order is without force.) > Given that the NSF is a government FUNDED agency, but not a > government AGENCY as is the NTIA (see the law regarding so-called "federal > instrumentality" and immunity) immunity under an agreement with the NSF > would likely not apply. NSF is an arm of the US Federal Government. No matter what one calls it, it is still subject to the requirement that it trace its authority back to the Constitution. Sure, NSF and NTIA have different organic powers. If one reads the acts that created them one finds that NSF has rather larger powers to actually take action. Indeed, the recognition of NTIA's lack of power to "do" things is well demonstrated by the CREDA between ICANN and NIST - that's "NIST", not "NTIA". (Yes, there is a governmental shell game going on.) > The decisive factor in the court's decision came not from the > involvement of the NSF but precisely from the role assumed by > the NTIA which minimized and superceded the role of the NSF. Not from my reading of the opinion. I read exactly the opposite, that the court found NTIA's power to derive solely from its role as sucessor administrator to the NSF-NSI contract. There was no finding of an independent base of authority for NTIA - it was unnecessary for the court to deal with that question. It will be interesting to hear what the GAO says. > The question remains however, does the statutory power exist > within the NTIA to grant ICANN, NSI, or any other private > company the monopoly right to make policy decisions that are > devoid of any technical content? In our case, the court granted > them that right. No, the court did not grant them that right. Rather it denied your claim. That's a subtle distinction, and one that probably doesn't feel good from your point of view, but it is a distinction that demonstrates that others may be more successful. --karl-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:46:30 -0700 From: Jothan Frakes Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS THIS IS IT Hi- Much respect to the players in this process, it is once more seems appropriate due to my employment that I abtstain on this voting. Item One: a Item Two: a Item Three: a Jothan Frakes ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 100 10:41:32 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs William Walsh wrote: > On 18-Apr-2000 Kent Crispin wrote: > > I submit that this is an infinitely better result than bankrupting IODs > > investors in a bunch of problematic lawsuits. > > While I agree with the above statement, the rest of your email presumes a > shared registry model for all new registries, and that is not what we have > agreed on here in this workgroup. I take it you mean the generic TLDs (I *can* see limited/chartered/restricted/ whatever-you-call-them TLDs being run by a single registrar-registry system, but -as I keep saying- it's a completely different set of issues). We haven't agreed on the contrary either (that generic TLDs could be run in another fashion). I am sure we would NOT receive consensus on the principle that generic TLDs could be run by a single entity registry-registrar. We've had that model, and we've seen how it didn't work (NSI holding on to com/net/org), and we've fought very hard to oblige it to open up. gTLDs run in that way are just not going to happen IMHO. The dreaded expression of "lock-in" rears its head way to high to allow that. Your statement that we have not yet agreed on all new [generic] registries being run on a shared registry model is only half correct. What we haven't yet agreed on is how they are to be run (which is why there is such lack of progress). Personally I feel that one of the major blocking points up to now *had* always been IOD asserting exclusive ownership over ".web". It seems that things are now changing, and we *may* have a way forward. Yours, John Broomfield. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 100 11:04:57 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs > > If you are split, which company is suing CORE, and why? > I will not comment on ongoing litigation. AFAIK, IOD hasn't yet split, so the question is moot. In any case, litigation between IOD & CORE *should* have no bearing on our work here. > > So, what next #2: IOD the registry should drop all claims to .web and > > position itself to bid on any and all TLDs that might become available. > NSI the registry should drop all claims to .com and position itself > to bid on any and all TLDs that might become available. They have and they will. Take a look at the agreement. Some time down the line (something like 6-7 years still to go, though I think there was a provision that changed the lengths depending on how fast/slow the NSI split REALLY came into existence -can't be bothered to look at it right now as it just changes dates-) com/net/org WILL be tendered for a bid. NSI HAS dropped all claims to ".com" (one of the terms of the settlement). The only reason that they got such an enormously beneficial length of term to continue hanging on to ".com" is because the fight to make them let go was going to be way long and painful. NSI had a great bargaining chip in their hands in that they had (as so to speak) the internet "by the balls". While I agree with you 100% that in all *FAIRNESS* NSI should be treated just as everyone else, they have been very astute and managed to drive a hard bargain based on their prior situation which was critical to internet infrastructure. I would consider it their last opportunity to hold the internet up for ransom. Any other gTLD added to the root is a NEW situation (whatever anyone may be doing outside of the legacy roots is a different matter), and therefore the bargaining chips on the side of people not wanting to give up what doesn't exist are very limited... In fact, those chips just amount to being able to block progress towards the situation envisioned for NSI (which NSI managed to get a bit of wriggle room). Fairness would say that ".com" should have already been tendered in an open way to being run by any registry operator under a set of conditions with no advantage a priori to NSI (other than already having a well established know-how -tongue in cheek there-). We *will* have that fairness in a few years, so in the meanwhile NSI operates under a non-tendered contract which is a far too long extension of their 5 year contract. As we all know, two wrongs do NOT make a right, and affirming that reproducing that state of unfairness all over (ie granting TLDs based on who-knows-what type of merit as opposed to open tender to run the registry) would make things fair is patently false. One highly possible scenario for the lawsuit-inclined, once a few other TLDs get put into the root on a tendered bid basis, would be for one of the registry operators (or one of those that didn't manage to secure a bid) to collectively sue NSI, DoC, NSF and ICANN stating that the current deal is invalid and that com/net/org should be put up for bids IMMEDIATELY. Maybe it would be more fruitful to concentrate lawyer expenses in that direction. Whoever *did* sue in that direction would certainly get a LOT of backing. Yours, John. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 08:59:05 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs >Personally I feel that one of the major blocking points up to now >*had* always been IOD asserting exclusive ownership over ".web". It seems that >things are now changing, and we *may* have a way forward. Really? What's changed? - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 09:01:33 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs Sounds great to me. Since NSI gets 7 more years of exclusivity in .com, new registries also get 7 years of exclusivity. When .com goes up for rebid, so do new TLDs. Don't like this plan? Change .com, and the new TLDs will have to follow as well. NSI gets nothing more than new TLDs do, and vice versa. Anything else is unfair trade, and subject to legal trouble. Let's avoid it. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 100 11:23:27 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs > Sounds great to me. Since NSI gets 7 more years of > exclusivity in .com, new registries also get 7 years > of exclusivity. When .com goes up for rebid, so do > new TLDs. > > Don't like this plan? Change .com, and the new TLDs > will have to follow as well. > > NSI gets nothing more than new TLDs do, and vice > versa. Anything else is unfair trade, and subject > to legal trouble. Let's avoid it. > > -- > Christopher Ambler > chris@the.web My personal OPINION is that as long as we have this type of "we shall not be moved" attitude, the stalemate will continue for ummmm 7 years. You don't want a ".web" put out for an open and fair tender, and others (myself for one) don't want a license to be granted to IOD in a draconian fashion. My position on how I feel gTLDs should be run at the registry level is not going to change (shared registrar model, low profile backoffice, regular rebid on an open basis) is not going to change. As your position seems to be based on the fact that NSI has it as you would want it, then it seems that your position falls flat on its face in 7 years and we revert to the other position (the fair one). Personally if I am presented with the choice of: a) fairness in 7 years and stalemate interim b) fairness in 7 years and granting monopolies in the interim I would glumly choose b. Now, what amazes me is that on the basis of it, you seem to accept the fact that the current NSI situation is unfair, yet you demand the same treatment. Amazing. Fortunately, that tacit affirmation that it would be an unfair situation does weaken the "gimme '.web'" position. If you TRULY do a registrar/registry split for IOD, and it is the IOD registrar that has the current client database, that registrar would be demanding ANY method to have ".web" inserted in the legacy roots, which would considerably weaken a "it's mine" attitude from the IOD registry. Yours, John. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 09:55:21 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs At 10:41 AM 4/18/00 -0400, John Charles Broomfield wrote: >William Walsh wrote: > > On 18-Apr-2000 Kent Crispin wrote: > > > I submit that this is an infinitely better result than bankrupting IODs > > > investors in a bunch of problematic lawsuits. > > > > While I agree with the above statement, the rest of your email presumes a > > shared registry model for all new registries, and that is not what we have > > agreed on here in this workgroup. > >I take it you mean the generic TLDs (I *can* see limited/chartered/restricted/ >whatever-you-call-them TLDs being run by a single registrar-registry system, >but -as I keep saying- it's a completely different set of issues). >We haven't agreed on the contrary either (that generic TLDs could be run in >another fashion). I am sure we would NOT receive consensus on the principle >that generic TLDs could be run by a single entity registry-registrar. We've >had that model, and we've seen how it didn't work (NSI holding on to >com/net/org), and we've fought very hard to oblige it to open up. gTLDs run >in that way are just not going to happen IMHO. The dreaded expression of >"lock-in" rears its head way to high to allow that. > >Your statement that we have not yet agreed on all new [generic] registries >being run on a shared registry model is only half correct. What we haven't >yet agreed on is how they are to be run (which is why there is such lack of >progress). Personally I feel that one of the major blocking points up to now >*had* always been IOD asserting exclusive ownership over ".web". It seems that >things are now changing, and we *may* have a way forward. Let me run an old idea by you. Limit this (or not) to William's non-shared limited/chartered/restricted TLDs. Two/three year window of registrar/registry combined operations from each new TLD registry. After which the registry opens up to all registrars. This should allow the registry to cover their start-up costs, and give the IP community one organization to deal with TM issues. After the window is over, all registrars have access, and the same rules apply as to .COM. This provides equality to NSI's prior situation in the two/three year ramp-up stage, and provides a stable economic base to mount new TLD registry operations. Remember, stability is one of the key factors. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 11:44:24 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 18-Apr-2000 John Charles Broomfield wrote: > I take it you mean the generic TLDs (I *can* see > limited/chartered/restricted/ > whatever-you-call-them TLDs being run by a single registrar-registry system, > but -as I keep saying- it's a completely different set of issues). > We haven't agreed on the contrary either (that generic TLDs could be run in > another fashion). I am sure we would NOT receive consensus on the principle > that generic TLDs could be run by a single entity registry-registrar. We've > had that model, and we've seen how it didn't work (NSI holding on to > com/net/org), and we've fought very hard to oblige it to open up. gTLDs run > in that way are just not going to happen IMHO. The dreaded expression of > "lock-in" rears its head way to high to allow that. The lock-in argument has been effectively refuted by the FTC's experts on the subject, comparing competitive registries to what NSI had under com/net/org is a fable, since NSI was not subject to competition at the registry level, and yes, actually, many of the caveats of our consensus here in this group have been that there be a diversity of model, not a single forced model. > Your statement that we have not yet agreed on all new [generic] registries > being run on a shared registry model is only half correct. What we haven't > yet agreed on is how they are to be run (which is why there is such lack of > progress). Personally I feel that one of the major blocking points up to now > *had* always been IOD asserting exclusive ownership over ".web". It seems > that > things are now changing, and we *may* have a way forward. Your analysis of the problem is not completely correct. While I do blame IOD's claim on .web for being a blocking point, and one that can and will damage the chance for a free and open process for the ongoing expansion of the namespace, I do not agree that it has been the major blocking point to introduction of new gTLDs at this point, which is what you statement above appears to say. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE4/K0I8zLmV94Pz+IRAkxkAKCD4xZ2nhRTE4GA/16GXveughr8LACeNTaE z6t7Z7+iIjMoVV+f+yvtYuk= =kp3/ - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:24:54 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 18-Apr-2000 John Charles Broomfield wrote: > fashion. My position on how I feel gTLDs should be run at the registry level > is not going to change (shared registrar model, low profile backoffice, > regular rebid on an open basis) is not going to change. As your position Your position doesn't really matter, as for if it changes or not. What matters is what we have agreed to here, and so far we have previous consensus on a diversity of models, not a single model as you are stating above. If this is the forced model, then I (and I am sure many others) would remove any and all support for expansion of the namespace under those terms. The only possible motive for those type of model is to make the ICANN Accredited registrars more money, and not to provide for a truly competitive namespace, with real competition at the registry level. Your arguments pro your position have all been refuted by experts, experts who hold degrees and whose real world experience is far more valuable in analysis than your opinion. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE4/LaG8zLmV94Pz+IRAplKAJwIPpWdMnFjbF3QST6aa4HLwST5CwCfQxw+ fDweyE2YLqS8gJ6RT+isozM= =wmJd - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 100 15:35:02 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs To the chair: Have we reached consensus as William states it? Ie consensus on running gTLDs (as in generic, not as in chartered) in different ways? If so, could I have the wording and the date when we (WG-C) reached this agreement? AFAIK it is still being discussed. Also, AFAIK, a large amount of the members of this workgroup would not settle for a gTLD to be run in any other way except shared, which is why I find strange that William affirms this. Thanks in advance. Yours, John Broomfield. William Walsh wrote: > On 18-Apr-2000 John Charles Broomfield wrote: > > fashion. My position on how I feel gTLDs should be run at the registry level > > is not going to change (shared registrar model, low profile backoffice, > > regular rebid on an open basis) is not going to change. As your position > > Your position doesn't really matter, as for if it changes or not. What matters > is what we have agreed to here, and so far we have previous consensus on a > diversity of models, not a single model as you are stating above. > > If this is the forced model, then I (and I am sure many others) would remove > any and all support for expansion of the namespace under those terms. The only > possible motive for those type of model is to make the ICANN Accredited > registrars more money, and not to provide for a truly competitive namespace, > with real competition at the registry level. > > Your arguments pro your position have all been refuted by experts, experts who > hold degrees and whose real world experience is far more valuable in analysis > than your opinion. > > - -- > William X. Walsh > http://userfriendly.com/ > GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) > Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ > > iD8DBQE4/LaG8zLmV94Pz+IRAplKAJwIPpWdMnFjbF3QST6aa4HLwST5CwCfQxw+ > fDweyE2YLqS8gJ6RT+isozM= > =wmJd > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 13:28:46 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 18-Apr-2000 John Charles Broomfield wrote: > Also, AFAIK, a large amount of the members of this workgroup would > not settle for a gTLD to be run in any other way except shared, which is why > I find strange that William affirms this. The converse of this is also true, that there are a large amount of members of this workgroup who would not accept a forced single model shared registry as the single model for all new gTLDs. The compromise consensus specifically mentioned diversity in models to cover this very issue. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE4/MV+8zLmV94Pz+IRAlsXAKDHnX0tFGGEd6GGTAQz0uehjY9wtACfUv+l WrkEz+apbmSXSwiaaXBFgtI= =u8wH - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 13:30:29 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs It is my understanding that we have reached consensus that there should be 6-10 new TLDs added. That's it, really. No mention of business model has been made, one way or the other. I also believe that "our work here is done" now that we've produced the report to the names council, which will make their recommendation to ICANN, after which ICANN will make their decision. While it's been fun, will we keep this mailing list open for further argument, or close it, its job having been done? - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - ----- Original Message ----- > Have we reached consensus as William states it? Ie consensus on > running gTLDs (as in generic, not as in chartered) in different ways? If > so, could I have the wording and the date when we (WG-C) reached this > agreement? > > AFAIK it is still being discussed. > > Also, AFAIK, a large amount of the members of this workgroup would > not settle for a gTLD to be run in any other way except shared, which is why > I find strange that William affirms this. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 100 16:04:49 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs > It is my understanding that we have reached consensus that there should > be 6-10 new TLDs added. That's it, really. No mention of business > model has been made, one way or the other. That is my understanding too, which is why Williams' bold affirmation strikes me as odd (thus the call to the chair). > I also believe that "our work here is done" now that we've produced > the report to the names council, which will make their recommendation > to ICANN, after which ICANN will make their decision. If that's all we can contribute, then we haven't done much unfortunately. > While it's been fun, will we keep this mailing list open for further > argument, or close it, its job having been done? I'm not convinced that we *are* done yet... Yours, John Broomfield. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 13:59:42 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs > I'm not convinced that we *are* done yet... Really? By what mechanism will any further discussion be passed along? Our report to the names council has been delivered, which was our charter. We have no further work assigned. We can continue to argue on this list, if you like, but it's no more valuable than arguing on the ga list, or NSI's domain-policy for that matter. I, for one, have enough mailing lists to deal with. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 14:56:17 -0700 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: [wg-c] 1447PDT 4/18, DNSO NC made all our work irrelevant In the teleconference just now, they decided: 1) That WGs are not the voice of the community, and that reports that go to the ICANN BoD should reflect their constituencies wishes instead (several almost sotto voce comments were heard regarding the fact that "just anyone" can participate in the working groups, and the results should be discounted), 2) That new gTLDs should be introduced (Yes: 14, No: 3 Abs: 0), but 3) That it shouldn't be 6-10 (Yes: 5, No: 9, Abs: 2) They're probably going to act on WG-B's report next, and wholeheartedly support the Sunrise proposal, because all the "dissenters" were those unrepresented rabble who you find in open processes, and the voices being heard couldn't possibly reflect the community. Pat yourselves on the back, folks. We've just wasted a year of our lives to have a group of lawyers decide that _THEY_ should be making these decisions, and to hell with our work if they don't agree with it. And just so you know, one of the staunchest and most vocal of those speaking up regarding just tossing our results was the ever-present Mr. Sheppard, of the Sheppard/Kleinman document, and co-NC liason to WG-B. They've just aptly demonstrated that the working groups are meaningless. We could have had just as much influence if the NC itself came up with the report, and then opened it to public comment. Of course, this particular NC teleconference isn't archived anywhere and wasn't webcast, due to "budgetary considerations". Must be the US$75k they're having to spend for a Secretariat, huh? One of these days, there's going to be a _real_ threat to the stability of the Net, and there's not much the mighty IP Constituency and their deep pockets can do about it. Keep throwing your muscle around like this, and you may find that the people who know how to operate the border routers, the switches, the servers hosting mission-critical services have had their fill of your antics, organize, and go on strike. And unlike a factory floor, your chances of finding scabs and strikebreakers to come in and run the machinery for you are significantly smaller. - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 15:12:19 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] 1447PDT 4/18, DNSO NC made all our work irrelevant I hate to say I told you so. I believe the exact quote was, "we'll argue on here, and present a recommendation to the names council, who will make their own decision (calling consensus where we agree with them, and consensus where we don't [no typo]), and then ICANN will do the same thing. The decisions have already been made. They were made long ago. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web > Pat yourselves on the back, folks. We've just wasted a year of our > lives to have a group of lawyers decide that _THEY_ should be making > these decisions, and to hell with our work if they don't agree with it. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 15:27:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: Re: [wg-c] 1447PDT 4/18, DNSO NC made all our work irrelevant is there a an IRC channel where all the listeners can discuss these issues? - -rick On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Mark C. Langston wrote: > > In the teleconference just now, they decided: > > 1) That WGs are not the voice of the community, and that reports that > go to the ICANN BoD should reflect their constituencies wishes instead > (several almost sotto voce comments were heard regarding the fact that > "just anyone" can participate in the working groups, and the results > should be discounted), > > 2) That new gTLDs should be introduced (Yes: 14, No: 3 Abs: 0), but > > 3) That it shouldn't be 6-10 (Yes: 5, No: 9, Abs: 2) > > They're probably going to act on WG-B's report next, and wholeheartedly > support the Sunrise proposal, because all the "dissenters" were those > unrepresented rabble who you find in open processes, and the voices > being heard couldn't possibly reflect the community. > > Pat yourselves on the back, folks. We've just wasted a year of our > lives to have a group of lawyers decide that _THEY_ should be making > these decisions, and to hell with our work if they don't agree with it. > > And just so you know, one of the staunchest and most vocal of those > speaking up regarding just tossing our results was the ever-present > Mr. Sheppard, of the Sheppard/Kleinman document, and co-NC liason to > WG-B. > > They've just aptly demonstrated that the working groups are meaningless. > We could have had just as much influence if the NC itself came up with > the report, and then opened it to public comment. > > Of course, this particular NC teleconference isn't archived anywhere > and wasn't webcast, due to "budgetary considerations". Must be the > US$75k they're having to spend for a Secretariat, huh? > > One of these days, there's going to be a _real_ threat to the > stability of the Net, and there's not much the mighty IP Constituency > and their deep pockets can do about it. Keep throwing your muscle > around like this, and you may find that the people who know how to > operate the border routers, the switches, the servers hosting > mission-critical services have had their fill of your antics, > organize, and go on strike. And unlike a factory floor, your chances > of finding scabs and strikebreakers to come in and run the machinery > for you are significantly smaller. > > -- > Mark C. Langston > mark@bitshift.org > Systems & Network Admin > San Jose, CA > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 18:26:16 -0400 From: "Kevin J. Connolly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] 1447PDT 4/18, DNSO NC made all our work irrelevant Mr. Langston's remarks are intemperate and irresponsible. They are, sadly, consonant with what WG-C has done (or, just as importantly and just as sadly, failed to do). > >>>> "Mark C. Langston" 04/18/00 05:56PM >>> > >In the teleconference just now, they decided: > >1) That WGs are not the voice of the community, and that reports that > go to the ICANN BoD should reflect their constituencies wishes instead Certainly it's hard to deny that WG-C resorted to coercive polling rather than rational discussion. Vote-counting is not a substitute for consensus. It also bears observing that the timing of the final poll did not conduce the preparation of minority reports. Isn't it odd that after all this time, no means were found at the end to enable the presentation of diverse positions and rationales? > (several almost sotto voce comments were heard regarding the fact that > "just anyone" can participate in the working groups, and the results > should be discounted), Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. > >2) That new gTLDs should be introduced (Yes: 14, No: 3 Abs: 0), but > >3) That it shouldn't be 6-10 (Yes: 5, No: 9, Abs: 2) It would be interesting to know if the NC thought that 6-10 is too few, too many, or both :-) It would also be interesting to know if the NC was pleased, displeased, or indifferent to WG-C's failure to address parts of its charter (such as the question "Which ones?" with respect to the new GTLDs). > >They're probably going to act on WG-B's report next, and wholeheartedly >support the Sunrise proposal, because all the "dissenters" were those >unrepresented rabble who you find in open processes, and the voices >being heard couldn't possibly reflect the community. It's a scary thought that instead of protecting famous marks, WG-B would essentially make all marks equal during the sunrise scramble. I do not think that the ICANN Board is stupid enough to fall for this proposal. > >Pat yourselves on the back, folks. We've just wasted a year of our >lives to have a group of lawyers decide that _THEY_ should be making >these decisions, and to hell with our work if they don't agree with it. Well, at least Mr. Langston refrained from saying "to hell with our _fine_ work" 'cos it certainly wasn't that. > >And just so you know, one of the staunchest and most vocal of those >speaking up regarding just tossing our results was the ever-present >Mr. Sheppard, of the Sheppard/Kleinman document, and co-NC liason to >WG-B. Well, one issue on which Mr. Langston and I come out at the same point is that Mr. Shepard is not good for the Internet. > >They've just aptly demonstrated that the working groups are meaningless. It does not take a Buddha to recognize that you can't make a mirror by licking a slate; and it does not take a PhD psychologist to recognize that you don't build consensus among enemies by allowing them free rein to scream at each other for a year. >We could have had just as much influence if the NC itself came up with >the report, and then opened it to public comment. Probably more; the WG has marginalized itself; it certainly has not covered itself with glory. > >Of course, this particular NC teleconference isn't archived anywhere >and wasn't webcast, due to "budgetary considerations". Must be the >US$75k they're having to spend for a Secretariat, huh? After seeing the trouble that the Small Business Administration has had with its roundtables, I'm not even a little surprised at this outcome and I don't attribute it to any bad intentions on anyone's part. Here's the part that I think it was especially improvident to say in public: > >One of these days, there's going to be a _real_ threat to the >stability of the Net, and there's not much the mighty IP Constituency >and their deep pockets can do about it. Keep throwing your muscle >around like this, and you may find that the people who know how to >operate the border routers, the switches, the servers hosting >mission-critical services have had their fill of your antics, >organize, and go on strike. And unlike a factory floor, your chances >of finding scabs and strikebreakers to come in and run the machinery >for you are significantly smaller. > Readers should be aware that the FBI pays people (no, I'm _not_ one of them) and runs robots (I'm not one of these, either :-) to look for foolish statements like this. I believe the Treasury Department has a program along these lines as well. Inviting people to commit biological impossibilities in a public forum simply brands one as crude, but making statements about interference with the operation of computers connected to the Internet (such interference is a federal crime, in case you were unaware of it) raises questions about one's judgment. I wouldn't do it, wouldn't be prudent. I'm going to begin working on a personal submission to the ICANN Board. I'll post it here shortly. I'll be happy to revise it to include comments from people I respect (y'all know whom I include in that category) and I might even listen to those whom I'm convinced have clam chowder instead of synapses, though those of you in the latter category should not hold your breath. Kevin J. Connolly The opinions expressed are those of the author, not of Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman LLP This note is not legal advice. If it were, it would come with an invoice. As usual, please disregard the trailer which follows. ********************************************************************** The information contained in this electronic message is confidential and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #91 *************************