Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

All,

Moving forward does not mean rounding up all the strays and pacifying
them. It doesn't mean joining them in their ominous and murky world of
incalculable risk and complex constructions of imagined equity, or
retained priviledge. 6-10 was not unanimous, and the B faction is not
necessary for ongoing consensus formation and need not be reconcilled
with (infinite looping on initial conditions).


Milt, and Chris (subsequent),

While the lowest common denominator passage reads nicely, particularly
after LA, the bits of your paper that caught my eye previously (16/10)
I've already commented on. If you missed that I can resend it to you.

>Put in simple English, 6-10 new TLDs are preferable to no new TLDs.

Contrast this statement with your prior that a specific gTLD, or even
classes of gTLDs (shared non-profit registry model), should not be
brought into existance prior to the adoption of free market principles. 

>It is perfectly reasonable for the position paper to emphasize that
>acceptance of a limited number of new TLDs is less desirable than an upfront
>commitment to add more.

Actually your paper emphasized the error of constituting a VI-B(3)(b)(7)
constituency (applicability of trademark doctrine) within ICANN, the
error of continuation of the IANA doctrine of public trust over the
namespace, and almost as an afterthought, the error of exercising any
caution in deployment of new gTLDs -- the look-both-ways-before-crossing
part of the practice of testbed deployment prior to general deployment.

I covered this before, if you thought your position defensible two weeks
ago you'd an opportunity to set the record straight then. If you missed
that I can resend it to you. If you've decided to shift your position
and abandon the attack on trademark and engineering concern for the
stability of root and the existance of policy other than "market policy",
fine, if not that's fine too. Fundamentally it all comes down to one
odd opinion in a venue of careful voters, so it isn't make-or-brake.

>It is obvious that your only interest in this process is the adoption and
>implementation of a specific TLD. ... Should your proposal fail to make
>the initial cut, your only hope for your proprietary .NAA TLD could very
>well rest with the gradual acceptance of more liberal policies.

Leaving the mind reading aside for a moment, I've counted the votes and
am fairly confident. We're going live in December, and sooner or later
ICANN will invite us to transition into the root. Position papers are just
one resource, and serve more than one purpose.

Odd that you should characterize .NAA as proprietary. A reminder:

6. Specific Implementation Plan
   
   The NAA shall operate according to the public resource model
   described below:
   
      Registry data is a public resource, subject to tribal and other
      privacy limitations, held in trust for the public by the NCAI/AFN
      or its designates, which by default is ICANN.
   
      The NAA registry shall operate as a shared registry on a cost-
      recovery, tribal infrastructure development basis. The registry
      operators are:

      [list omitted]

Who, in your view, are/is the proprieters? What is the property? What is
the property right? What part do you refer to?

>Bear this in mind as we move forward.

The neo-liberal policies you seek wouldn't favor us, nor do they favor
other low-cap would-be registry operators.

What your mind reading missed is that we've been at this since 1992, with
Jon Postel, Mike St. Johns, and their successors in interest at the IANA
and DoD now DoC, respectively to ICANN via the gTLD-MoU. We're in this for
the long haul, being disinclined to leave North America, or leave data and
voice, or law over same, a colonial monopoly. Incidently, we originally had
proposed seven regional gTLDs, but to get the first one is sufficient for
the moment. You could have asked, if you thought the answer important, as
idle rhetoric has limited utility and ready counter-example.

The bitterest opponents of indigenous rights in modern technolody, manifest
in the namespace, are the colonials in Aotearoa (New Zealand), so you and
Chris may want to explore a united front with ISOCNZ against the first TLD
based upon the theory of human rights, rather than neo-liberalism. After all,
you write against the doctrine of marks and the rights of Indian to culture,
and the Kiwis are neo-liberals.

>In that regard your status is exactly the same as Chris Ambler.

I'm not sure Mr. Ambler is flattered by the comparison, but this does assume
mind reading, and overlook the minor problem of factual errors. Unlike Mr.
Ambler I both joined the 6-10 consensus without reservation (an unavoidable
pun) and made the concession to co-sign the A paper, which flirts with the
morass of for-profit single-operator registries, and declines to state a
position on the issue of public trust (data recovery), unlike D & E.

Chris Ambler's variation on the theme of bad-faith in testbeds and the
necessity of a business model (for-profit, his possibly, probably not
Syracuse University's, neh?) is the familiar "anti-trust" claim.

Assuming for the moment his claim is valid, and at some point in the
dark and stormy future a fragile and impoverished ICANN faces a claim
by the stable and wealthy IOdesign, ready for the 6-10 year journey a
complex litigation, then ICANN need only allow some operator to make
the familiar (Nysernet, ANS, ...) alterations. Alternatively ICANN can
require what the US has not for the better part of this decade, and
for which no anti-trust claim has prevailed, and attempt to sprinkle
pixie dust on NSI... which leads us back to the safty and flexibility
of the shared non-profit registry model.

Cheers,
Eric