Re: [soac-mapo] On "universal resolvability" and useful questions that emerged yesterday

[Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx>]

Milton,

Some comments inline. But first, generally speaking, referring to your
comment on technical misunderstanding : this is the reason why I believe
that "universal availability" could be a better concept than "universal
resolvability". You are right in your technical assessment and what I
believe the GAC is concerned with is indeed the objective of universal
availability (I do not think I misrepresent GAC members but I can be
corrected).

On the comments below, we may not agree, but this type of exchange is the
very benefit of the processes we are involved in (they allow to understand
better the perspectives of others). thanks for engaging.

Best

Bertrand


On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>  Bertrand
>
> I don’t think you have adequately answered Antony’s paradox.
>
>
>
> I am still trying to figure out what exactly is the added value of
> so-called “universal resolvability” when one purchases this “value” at the
> price of completely excluding hundreds, perhaps thousands of top level
> domain services that hundreds of thousands or millions of people would be
> willing to use. Can you or anyone from GAC explain to me exactly what public
> benefit is achieved by doing that? I just don’t get it. I see a net loss in
> connectivity and service, not a gain.
>

You are a very good advocate :-) However, I sense you somehow take as point
of reference a sort of ideal situation where all possible strings would
already be in the root and we would be subtracting some of them. in that
case, yes, one could argue there would be a loss in availability. but this
is not the situation we are in. We have less than 30 gTLDs today and we are
trying to open up new opportunities because there is a global public
interest in doing so : any new TLD that enters the root is an opportunity
for information to be more easily accessed, for communities to congregate,
for actors or groups to increase their visibility, for new services to be
developed. Principle 1 of the gNSO recommendation rightly says : "*New gTLDs
must be introduced in an orderly, timely and predictable way*". I do not
think that "orderly" only refers to the internal process of ICANN. There is
a general public interest in conducting the significant revolution that the
opening up of the domain name space represents with responsibility so that
this transition is broadly accepted, and even convinces those who are still
reluctant, that it has been well conceived and that we have taken into
account and balanced the conflicting interests in a proper manner.

The root is a global collective resource. There will be a single regime for
deciding what gets in it or not (this is what the DAG is about). This is a
good thing as it ensures the unicity of the network and its capacity to
serve the entire human population. Nevertheless, different parts of this
entire human population (and not only the respective governments) still have
very different value systems, sometimes very conflicting, and if we set
aside norms that we believe are against universal principles, they deserve
to be respected. Cultural diversity is a reality, a richness but also a
difficult issue on a global network. The challenge is to develop unified
procedures that implement universal principles (such as freedom of
expression and association) AND can be shared/endorsed by very different
value systems. Achieving that would actually be a major confirmation that
different value systems can coexist in cyberspace and therefore I do see a
strong global public interest in trying to do just that.

Finally, we should keep in mind the time dimension. I am convinced that in
the course of the deployment of the new gTLD program, things that would not
be accepted in the first round, could progressively become more acceptable.
The first round will be a short window, but the TLD introduction process
will likely expand for years to come. this should be factored in. sometimes
the better is the enemy of the good. If the rules we set up at launch, are
considered inappropriate by a broad range of actors, or if they feel that
their concerns have not been heard or listened to, it's the whole ICANN
experiment that is potentially at stake. I do believe we can find the right
balance.



>
>
> Further, (as we discussed personally yesterday) I think the GAC approach to
> universal resolvability is based on a technical misunderstanding. If a TLD
> is in the root, and a single DNS root is universally accepted, and the root
> name servers and TLD servers are configured properly, then a TLD is
> “universally resolvable.” That is, it is available to anyone who wants to
> resolve it. That is the best the root operator can do. If a local network
> chooses not to avail themselves of the resolution capability, that is their
> choice and their problem, not the root opertors – and it is a choice that
> happens all the time.
>

Agreed (see above).

>
>
> By the way, the distinction between the second level and top level is
> completely irrelevant from a technical point of view. If you block a SLD you
> are restricting the resolution of a domain name. Many SLDs have more domains
> and users than TLDs, so don’t try to say the distinction is one of scale.
>

It is indeed technically identical, but not in terms of visibility or
political significance. At the second level, you do not see articles in
newspapers on daily blocking of some content, and many global hosting
platforms have clear procedures to block certain contents in certain
countries to comply with national laws. But it becomes a different matter
when a whole site (Twitter, youTube, Facebook) or service (Blackberry) is
blocked. A top Level domain is and would be even more meaningful.

>
>
> The only real concern about universal resolvability comes from the threat
> of a fragmented root – and this refers to a situation where people who WANT
> to resolve a TLD name CANNOT do so, regardless of how they configure their
> system, because there are two or more incompatible, disconnected DNS roots.
> That situation, most of us can agree, poses public interest problems because
> many people will be confused about how to resolve names. But a deliberate
> choice by one household, network operator or government to block a specific
> TLD does not pose any of those issues.
>

Here again, you are technically right, as often. In my view, blocking is not
fragmentation. However, someone on the list raised the hypothesis that if
governments progressively were to take the habit of circulating their root
list to their national ISPs (if they were to block numerous TLDs), this
would reduce the role of the "universal root", reinforce the perception of
"national Internets" and even lead to the introduction of potentially
fragmenting other TLDs to these lists. This is about trust building and
preserving at each stage, the value of the single authoritative zone file,
and keeping blocking at the TLD level to the range of limited exceptions
rather than the rule.


>
>
> Based on my discussion of this with various government officials (including
> mainly in the US) I think the threat of national-level blocking is being
> confused with the threat of a fragmented root. Do you think GAC’s position
> would change if this mistake were pointed out and explained?
>

Not really, for reasons explained above. I think there is already some
understanding of that; but the clarification should be made anyway. It would
be useful and I certainly will share it with colleagues in the course of our
discussions.

>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Bertrand de La Chapelle
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 31, 2010 10:44 AM
> *To:* Antony Van Couvering
> *Cc:* soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Frank March;
> Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* Re: [soac-mapo] On "universal resolvability" and useful
> questions that emerged yesterday
>
>
>
> Anthony,
>
>
>
> It's only a paradox if you interpret universal availability as a principle
> that should apply to any possible string proposition (as if there is a sort
> of "right to be in the root"). But the objective is
> universal availability of the strings that will be accepted in the root
> (those rejected will be for many reasons, ie : all the diverse objections
> listed in the DAG). The ambition is that strings that are in the global
> common root are as universally available as possible. But you are right in a
> certain way : there is potentially a sort of intellectual feedback loop
> there.
>
>
>
> Interesting qualification of .xxx as "existing to be blocked" :-) Not sure
> this is what Stuart had or has in mind ...
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> Bertrand
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Antony Van Couvering <
> avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Bertrand,
>
> Thank you for this resume and overview.  It is very helpful.
>
> At the heart of your argument is an interesting paradox.  Shall we set up
> rules to block certain strings in order to preserve universal availability?
>  If a string is blocked, it is available to no-one at all, and hence is the
> opposite of universally available.  If it is blocked only partially, for
> example by certain governments, then it is not universally available, but it
> is nonetheless far more available than if it had never seen the light of day
> at all.
>
> What are your thoughts then on .XXX, which exists to be blocked?
>
> Antony
>
>
>
> On Aug 31, 2010, at 4:56 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Following Milton's request, I'm trying here to reformulate more clearly
> what I said at the end of the discussion yesterday regarding universal
> resolvability. This is an attempt to reframe the issue we are facing to make
> it more addressable. I am not speaking on behalf of the whole GAC here, as
> this has not been discussed in that level of detail yet.
> >
> > 1) It is true that there is no absolute universal resolvability today at
> the Top Level. However, among the 270 TLDs or so, blocking of a whole TLD is
> an extremely rare case and only done (from what I've heard) by a very
> limited number of countries. Hence, we can consider that there is a general
> situation of universal resolvability, with some rare exceptions. (universal
> resolvability here is not understood in the pure technical sense of the term
> but more as "universal availability"). This has clearly been a positive
> situation for the Internet as a whole.
> >
> > 2) However, the desirable opening up of the domain name space is likely
> to introduce more cases where the string may not be considered universally
> objectionable (by whatever criteria or process), but nonetheless would be
> sufficiently "sensitive" in some countries for them to decide to block it.
> This is what the GAC alludes to (in its gTLD principles) when it says that
> TLDs should respect sensitivities regarding terms of national, cultural,
> geographic or religious significance.
> >
> > 3) To handle such sensitive cases, there are two extreme approaches :
> either making no limitations whatsoever at the root level and potentially
> reducing significantly the universal accessibility because many countries
> would block many TLDs; or at the other extreme, giving a de facto veto right
> to every individual government on what gets into the root. Both approaches
> seem inappropriate, or at least, unlikely to gather consensus in the group.
> >
> > 4) In other terms, the expansion of the TLD space means that there will
> be some strings that will be in the root and blocked at the Top Level in
> some countries. This is regrettable but probably unavoidable.
> >
> > 5) As we finalize the new gTLD program, I believe there is a legitimate
> common and public interest objective of having/keeping as much universal
> resolvability/availability as possible and as little blocking of whole TLDs
> at the national level as possible. Therefore, we should probably not speak
> of a "principle of universal resolvability" but of an "objective of
> universal availability, with limited exceptions".
> >
> > 6) Such national exceptions should, building on the mechanisms of the
> UDHR or the Treaty of Paris (often used as reference to MaPO provisions), be
> made by law and be based upon national norms of morality and public order
> (here MaPO norms are at the national level and this is OK). Moreover, with
> respect to the traditional principle of proportionality, any blocking should
> ideally be conducted at the lowest granular level possible, which means that
> blocking of a whole TLD should remain an extreme and exceptional measure.
> >
> > 7) Therefore, I believe the challenge we are trying to address is to find
> ways, at the global level, to handle such cases in the most predictable and
> objective manner, so that objections can be formulated, evaluated, and
> ultimately measured with respect to the global public interest (ie : the
> benefits of a new TLD outweigh the inconvenients).
> >
> > I hope this clarifies what I tried to convey yesterday.
> >
> > Finally, I would like to highlight some very interesting questions that
> came up in the good discussion yesterday evening and could structure part of
> our future interactions :
> >
> > - how early in the overall process should MaPO/public
> interest/sensitivity objections be handled ?
> > - are we talking "string only" or is the applicant also a relevant
> element ?
> > - would a panel (however it is formed) provide "expert advice" or amount
> to full "outsourcing" (Frank) ? in other terms, how binding would the
> recommendations of such a panel be ?
> > - does the Board have to make an explicit decision for every TLD (even if
> it's a mere endorsement of the result of the process, like in the IDN ccTLD
> FT) or does the final decision rest with the staff determination or the
> different panels ?
> > - how much flexibility and direct responsibility would/should the Board
> have in the final decision, in particular in the case of sensitive strings ?
> > - would it be useful to explore a mechanism of supermajority for the
> Board to refuse a TLD and/or to overrule a negative recommendation by the
> panel or objections by some governments ?
> >
> > Looking forward to further discussions on the list and conference calls.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Bertrand
> >
> > --
> > ____________________
> > Bertrand de La Chapelle
> > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
> Information Society
> > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of
> Foreign and European Affairs
> > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
> >
> > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de
> Saint Exupéry
> > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
>
>
>
>
> --
> ____________________
> Bertrand de La Chapelle
> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
> Information Society
> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of
> Foreign and European Affairs
> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
>
> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
> Exupéry
> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
>



-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign
and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")