Re: [ga] New TLD Paradigm

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dr. Dierker and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

  You are quite right here dear Dr. Dierker, on all counts.  Let us all
recognize, that a consensus model/method can only be accurately be
determined if it such can and is measured, and inclusive of any and
all interested parties and stakeholders/users.  Such does not exist now
nor has yet to be allowed to exist as the various GNSO Constuencies
are closed or very restricted as to membership, does not include
any free forming Constuencie for non aligned
stakeholders/users/registrants
and ICANN has no open membership.  Hence no real consensus can
honestly be claimed or affermed.

  And so, all of this is why many have claimed that ICANN as it is now
and has been, a sham.

Hugh Dierker wrote:

>    OK.
>
>   I am going after Jeffs' Chumming and going to take on your fast ball
> down the middle.
>   If i were on the BoD i would want more objective standards also. As
> to you train analogy i agree wholeheartedly. (although the width and
> spacing of the "tracks" actually was Roman chariot vs. cart inspired I
> believe).
>
>   But please let us not call it "new and improved" or "previously
> lovingly owned used car".
>
>   It is Tabula Rosa. It will replace no paradigm for none exists.
> Chaos and anarchy by fiat of Aristocracy is basically currently in
> existance and that is not a paradigm.
>
>   So let us get rid of the old Narrow gauge up the gorge through
> Durango and drive a golden spike to secure that all TLDs are on the
> same Palage.
>
>   I have always held to the notion that ICANN should function as a
> uniform internet standard writing body. Like our US and States'
> Uniform Building Code. Or professional ethics concepts. Or EPA concept
> where compliance is measured in minimizing damage to our ecosystem.
> Not a governing body but a standard setting body where anyone can play
> and harmful deviation is measured in cleanup dollars or the ability to
> attract investors or buyers.
>
>   e
>
>
> "Michael D. Palage" <Michael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   Karl,
>
> Always good to hear from you. I understand your concerns about the
> politicalization of a technical coordinating body. Unfortunately some
> of the issues you raise about ICANN's legitimacy are outside the scope
>
> of this email exchange, and best left to be discussed in a more casual
>
> setting while drinking some nice California wine.
>
> In responding to your scenario about adding new TLDs to root I have
> chosen to use the analogy of trains instead of airplanes. I use that
> analogy because I hope your restoration of that old engine is
> progressing along nicely, and many people complain that ICANN's is not
>
> very good at making the trains run on time.
>
> Prior to the US. Civil War, there were multiple gauge tracks within
> the
> states that made transporting cargo difficult. Congress imposed the
> current 4 feet, eight and a half inch standard to help promote the
> interoperability of transit along the rail system. Thus ICANN when
> adding new TLDs at a minimum needs to make sure the registry operator
> will ensure its packets travel in a uniform and predicable pattern. On
>
> this we agree.
>
> One of the things that I was amazed during my first year in law school
>
> was how much tort law evolved in connection with the railroad system.
> >From liability in connection with rail road crossing deaths to
> accidental fires started from the embers discharged by an engine's
> smoke
> stack.
>
> Similarly, technical coordination does unfortunately stop with a
> uniform
> track gauge. Additional technical requirements which have public
> policy
> considerations begin to become intertwined, i.e. railroad set backs,
> lights and bells at crossing, etc.
>
> That is the reality of where ICANN currently finds itself. If ICANN
> were
> to allow the operation of any engines that met the minimum technical
> criteria of a standard gauge that would not be good, because the
> ensuing
> complications (accidents, lawsuits, etc.) would probably lead to
> ICANN's
> demise. Although ICANN still tries my patience at times, I still have
> faith in the bottom up consensus model, that me, you, Louis and others
>
> rallied around back in 1999.
>
> Although I respect your position that any TLD meeting minimum
> technical
> requirements should be added to the root (assuming the USG approves
> the
> recommendation of ICANN/IANA), I am trying to find a middle ground
> where
> new TLDs can be added to the root in an open, transparent and
> PREDICABLE
> manner. Unfortunately the GAC (Public Policy Consideration) elephant
> is
> never going to leave the room after the last 2004 sTLD. Although some
> may say that ICANN does not need to listen to the GAC, as ICANN is
> merely making decisions on technical matters, from my perspective
> there
> is not much that ICANN can do without having political ramifications.
>
> Thus having a TLD process where there are baseline technical criteria,
>
> coupled with minimum public policy safeguards, is a much better place
> to
> me than a rails system, where the governments are telling us what make
>
> and model of train we can use, what trains we need to ride, where we
> need to sit, and what cargo (packets) the train can carry.
>
> Thanks again for the feedback, and was good to hear from you again.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:40 AM
> To: Michael D. Palage
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD Paradigm
>
>
> Michael D. Palage wrote:
>
> Hi Michael! It's good to see your name on some email.
>
> While I agree you you on so many things, I want to raise some points
> that I think illustrate why ICANN is in deep trouble - trouble much
> like
>
> that of a friend of mine who discovered that his (old) house had been
> constructed without a foundation and was in danger of total collapse.
>
> > The facts are there are currently various types of TLDs which ICANN
> > has added to the root in connection with the 2000 proof of concept
> and
>
> > the 2004 sTLD: These "types" are sponsored (for-profit), sponsored
> > (non-profit), non-sponsored-open, and non-sponsored-restrictive.
>
> Imagine that we are running a private corporation that has a somewhat
> vague relationship with the FAA (US Federal Aviation Administration).
> Imagine that it the FAA has told us that we are empowered to decide
> who
> may operate an airline and who may not. Imagine further that as a
> practical matter that without our approval an applicant has no hopes
> of
> entering the airline industry - we hold the key.
>
> So, we venture forth - But for some reason we don't engage on matters
> regarding whether the applicant actually hires people who know how to
> fly or whether there are mechanics who know how to properly maintain
> aircraft and use proper parts. Instead we focus on the ticket counter
> as the criteria of eligibility.
>
> So we allow new airline applicants in they promise that nobody will
> wait
>
> longer than 5 minutes in a ticket line and that we will never sell a
> ticket to anyone who has a name the same as that of a movie star.
>
> Now, that, if removed to the context of DNS, is ICANN.
>
> I know that my .ewe TLD (
> http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000159.html ) has about as
> much
> chance of being approved by ICANN as Miami has of being overrun by
> galloping glaciers.
>
> I am willing to promise that I will run the name servers in accord
> with
> all broadly accepted published internet technical standards.
>
> What god, or more importantly, through what clear legal path of
> authority, has ICANN obtained the ability to say that I may not risk
> my
> own money to try to establish .ewe on the internet? Through what clear
>
> legal path or authority has ICANN been given the ability to define
> what
> my business structure should be and what rules I should impose on my
> customers, particularly since ICANN can articulate no reason why those
>
> structures or rules have any relationship to the technical stability
> of
> the internet.
>
> What is the technical stability of the internet, at least in regard to
>
> ICANN's mission?
>
> ICANN was created with the explicit promise that it would ensure that
> the DNS system would be stable - which means that it will efficiently
> and continuously resolve name query packets into name response packets
>
> with neither bias for nor against any query source or query content.
>
> But ICANN has not done that. We internet users are running at risk.
> Our only protection is the good action of several actors, such as root
>
> server operators, who are under now obligation to continue such good
> action.
>
> In other words, we hired ICANN to be a fireman, but we got a
> stockbroker
>
> instead - an a rather expensive one. By my calculations, ICANN is
> pumping, in the form of inflated registry fees, several hundred
> millions
>
> of dollars (US) out of the pockets of domain name buyers and into the
> bank accounts of Verisign and other registry operators each and every
> year.
>
> One might say "Oh no, we really wanted ICANN to ensure stability of
> the
> name registration systems and protect marks" - to which I must ask:
> What
>
> in the world does that have to do with the *technical* stability of
> the
> net? And if ICANN was meant to be trademark protection agency, then we
>
> have to ask why is that job not better left to the traditional
> mechanisms for that kind of thing?
>
> And if ICANN was intended for that purpose, then who in the world is
> ensuring that DNS query packets are efficiently, quickly, and fairly
> turned into DNS response packets? And who is going to be accountable
> should that cease?
>
> And there is this rather important matter:
>
> 1. ICANN is a combination: It is a forum in which those who have
> "stake", mainly as defined by those incumbents who make money from
> domain name sales or who have an interest in restricting the use of
> certain names, typically those used in commerce as trade and service
> marks.
>
> AND
>
> 2. ICANN restrains trade: ICANN says who may and who may not go into
> the
>
> domain name business at all levels - one can not be a registrar
> without
> ICANN permission, one can not be a registry without ICANN permission.
> ICANN imposes a particular business model (registry-registrar), and
> sets
>
> many of the important terms of the customer contract (whois, a
> registry
> fee, an ICANN fee, minimum and maximum duration, etc.)
>
> Now when we put those together we have this: A combination in
> restraint
> of trade.
>
> Is it an illegal combination in restraint of trade? I don't know. But
> I do know that that question needs to be asked in every nation that
> has
> laws on such matters in which ICANN has an adequate jurisdictional
> contact - which is just about every nation.
>
> It's time for ICANN to realize that its experiment in new-age
> controlled
>
> economies - an experiment that has unnerving similarities to the
> central
>
> planning system of the now defunct USSR - is a failure.
>
> On the business side, ICANN has prevented competition except in
> details,
>
> and prices are still much higher than they need to be due to ICANN's
> fiat registry fees. Privacy has been sacrificed along the way.
>
> And yet through all of this, if the internet's DNS should burn down,
> or
> be attacked, or fail through administrative screw-up - in other words,
>
> if the DNS lights go out - ICANN's only response will be "not our
> problem".
>
> --karl--
>
>
>
>
>
>

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827