Responses to Stuart Lynn’s Proposals for New
TLDs
I will probably submit a more systematic
paper, but these are a few opening comments.
Stuart Lynn: The underlying premise of
this report is that most of the vexing problems over the course of the new gTLD
process have arisen in connection with the unsponsored TLDs, not with the
sponsored TLDs. This is not surprising, and does not reflect negatively on the
selected operators of those new unsponsored TLDs.
Richard Henderson: I find it extraordinary
that Stuart Lynn seems to be exonerating the Registries responsible for the
unsponsored New TLDs. The conduct of Afilias, its Board, and its executives
seems indefensible to many people, and their execution of the roll-out was
described by their own resigning Board member (Robert Connelly) as “an
abomination”. Coupled with breaches of the rules and contracts by Board members
of Afilias and its executives (breaches they have never attempted to deny), this
sounds like a Lynn whitewash. I’ll remind you that Dan Halloran has now been
running scared of addressing these charges for over 220 days.
Stuart Lynn: There are many other
significant, unanswered questions regarding new unsponsored TLDs –
questions whose answers should, in my view, await completion of the full-scale
evaluation recommended by the NTEPPTF (see Part II of this overall
Action Plan for new gTLDs). In any event, there appears to be little demand
right now for new unsponsored TLDs – at least, no one is banging at my
door. Some of the enthusiasm of a couple of years ago has perhaps been tempered
by the realities of the marketplace.
Richard
Henderson: One of the key questions must be, how do you justify any further
unsponsored New TLDs (and Stuart Lynn advocates using the same Registry
Agreements and rules) when (a) there has been no evaluation process (b) no
release of the Registries’ Evaluation Reports (c) clearly-publicised fiascos and
harm to consumers. Why is the consumer any less likely to be harmed again, if
they just re-run the process? So on the question of unsponsored New TLDs I would
say that it would be unacceptable simply to pre-empt the findings of an
evaluation process, or re-run the Agreements which have already failed in a
number of serious ways in the first round of New TLDs. At the very least, the
Agreements need to be significantly re-written.
Stuart Lynn: Or should the name space be rationalized or
"taxonomized", as it were, with ICANN defining the TLD strings in some
comprehensive fashion, and requesting bids for the various individual components
of this "taxonomized" space?
Richard Henderson: I challenge the
assumption that ICANN is the right entity to “define” the TLD strings and create
an overall taxonomy for the Internet of the whole world. I should have said that
the narrow technical mission of ICANN in NO WAY extends to decisions over
defining the fundamental naming structure of the world’s internet. To assume it
does, suggests that USG through ICANN owns the Internet everywhere, and I
believe an entirely independent body or even a Commission of the United Nations
should be involved in determining the structure and taxonomy of the Internet for
the future. If ICANN is about technical oversight, what is it doing, suggesting
it should take the decisions for such fundamental policy? I’m not even assuming
that a taxonomy is the right approach (though it needs to be considered) but I’m
saying that crucial decisions about the shape and structure of the Internet
should not be left to a discredited California quango, which so many people
suspect is in league with a clique of wealthy vested interests : these are
decisions which need to take into account the needs and interests of the whole
world, all its countries, and a much wider range of relevant parties.
Stuart Lynn: There were differing views as
to how much involvement ICANN should have in constraining new registries through
its legal framework. Some felt that ICANN should have minimal involvement,
adopting a laissez-faire attitude towards the marketplace. Others felt that more
oversight was needed to create a level playing field for competition to work
fairly and effectively, or to protect consumers.
Richard Henderson: Some of the fiascos and
harm to consumers that were evidenced and documented in the Afilias roll-out
(and to a lesser extent in .biz) were attributable EXACTLY to the flimsy
Registry and Registrar agreements, and ICANN’s consciously laissez-faire policy
of almost zero policing. It is a significant FACT that many of the frauds and
iniquities that occurred should have been PRE-EMPTED by (a) tighter, more
intelligent Agreements (b) enforcement of the Agreements (c) pro-active measures
by ICANN to protect and defend the integrity of the processes and actively
address the serious concerns of consumers. As many of you know, ICANN pursued a
policy of vagueness, laissez-faire let-it-run, non-responsiveness (hello Dan
Halloran!), and abjectly failed to put consumers first. Their friends in the
Registry and Registrar industry were protected and allowed to get away with
mayhem. Any suggestion that further NewTLDs can be envisaged, using the same
Registry Agreements, is unacceptable. ICANN should (if only in its own
self-interest) be aware of the very serious damage done to its own credibility
by the pandemonium that accompanied the .info and .biz releases. ICANN cannot
afford to suffer further PR disasters or its demise may become
terminal.
Further more structured comments probably
to follow.
Richard Henderson
(Richard Henderson is a Panel Member of
IcannatLarge.org, but these are personal comments)