Yet another analysis of the NSI/IANA deal

["Richard J. Sexton" <richard@vrx.net>]

I just couldnt stand the formatting of the first documetn I sent round.
This should be less painful to read.

A.THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH "REGISTRARS" 

               "(ii) The Domain Name Supporting
               Organization shall be composed of
               representatives from name registries and
               registrars of top-level domains ("TLDs"),
               businesses and any entities that are users
               of the Internet and any other entities with
               legitimate interests in these issues, as
               determined by the Domain Name
               Supporting Organization consistent with
               Section 2 of this Article and approved by
               the Board. The Domain Name Supporting
               Organization shall create a Names
               Council to make recommendations
               regarding TLDs, including operation,
               assignment and management of the
               domain name system and other related
               subjects; and"

        1.There does not seem to be a working definition for a
          "registrar". In the degenerate case, any individual that ever
          registered a domain for another individual is a registrar.
          There is no technical, legal or financial barrier to entry; in
          theory everybody on the Internet can be a "registrar". 

        2.Registries are a necessity. They provide a unique and
          mandatory technical function. Registrars, on the other hand
          are a service function; there is no technical requirement for
          them. It's similar to a car dealership that may license the car
          for a purchaser as a matter of convenience, but, anybody can
          go to the license office and register it themselves. 

        3.the organization is subject to capture by a large group of
          registrars. A registry may "proclaim" any number of
          registrars; currently there are 230 or so TLDS registries in the
          legacy root. If they "created" say 5000 registrars the voice of
          registries is obliterated. Whereas a TLD registry 

     SUGGESTION: remove "registrars" from this section of the
     by-laws. 

  B.IS THERE A TIMETABLE? 

     The green paper called for 5 new TLDs. The white paper left
     decision that up to the new organization and now, what might be
     the new organization, seems, in my opinion, years away from
     introducing any new TLDs into the root. CORE members are being
     bled $500 a month in their limbo-holding pattern and the "other
     guys" have been waiting patiently with operational tld servers and
     registries for almost two years now. Would it be possible to let
     each group that can demonstrate it has been "ready" for, say a
     year or more, to have one TLD admitted into the legacy root? This
     would also prevent the "shell shock" of having a large number of
     TLDs introduced at one time. 

     SUGGESTION: Identify some sort of time table; possibly deploy
     one TLD per recognizable entity immediately. 

  C.INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATION 

     Either the ICANN is responsive, and accountable to the Internet
     community or it is not. If it is, since the Internet community knows no
     geopolitical boundary, the notion of International representation is
     specious. If the ICANN is responsive, it is equally responsive to
     somebody in Washington DC or somebody is Papua New Guinea.
     Do we want the best possible representation on the board, or do
     we want a politically correct board ? 

     The aggregation of Canada, the US, Mexico (which are all part of
     *North* America), Central America and South America into "the
     Americas region" would permit all candidates to be from the US.
     This is not expected to be a popular decision with the Canadian or
     other governments. If there are three people from the Americas,
     select one each from Canada, US and Central/South America.
     Better yet, ignore the International Representation requirement 

     It is easy to make light of this: "I want the best possible board; if I
     can't have that I want a Canadian on the board". 

     Additionally, the idea of excluding government people does not
     mesh well with, say the Asia pacific region where it is common for
     line between government and business to be fuzzy at best, ie.
     Singapore Inc. 

     SUGGESTION: drop the international representation as a
     requirement, and make it a goal. If two candidates are equal, then
     select the most geographically diverse one, but do not overlook a
     superior candidate because they come from the same region as
     other board members. 

  D.COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD 

     It's unclear how the initial board will be selected. It appears the
     board is made up of people appointed by the SO's. But, the SO's
     are selected by the board, so there is an apparent bootstrapping
     problem here. 

     SUGGESTION: Clarify how the initial board is selected. 

--
richard@culture.getty.edu             "It's all just marketing"