Return to Unique Root for DNS Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: joppenheimer
Date/Time: Fri, June 1, 2001 at 1:39 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.0 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: I wrote to Mr. Lynn, and to his credit he replied.


                I wrote to Mr. Lynn and to his credit he replied.  Unfortunately that's where the credit ends.  Politics notwithstanding, I've never been a fan of dishonesty.  At least some politicians do it well.  Not in this case.  My article, as posted in ICB and on ICANNWatch:

New York, NY May 31, 2001 (ICB TOLL FREE NEWS) This week ICB posted a series of articles (COCKY BUT NOT TOO BRIGHT, EMPEROR ICANN SHOWS ITS ASS, ICANN PRES PERSUADES HIMSELF TO ISSUE POLICY STATEMENT, ISSUED, POSTED!, & SCHEDULED FOR STOCKHOLM PRESENTATION!!) addressing Stuart Lynn's startling policy pronouncement, Discussion Draft: A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS.

Unable to shake the Twilight-Zonish absurdity of the new ICANN president's presumptuous (to say the least) behavior, I asked, "Ignoring for the moment accepted protocol of publishing discussion drafts for public comment etc. - on what basis does *your* personal-opinion discussion draft appear on ICANN's main page, as opposed to or sans inclusion of discussion drafts written by others that discuss the same topic?

Please advise - I find this placement most curious."

Mr. Lynn replies, "It is absolutely a responsibility of the ICANN president and staff to draw attention to what is ICANN policy and what is not. That is the basis for the posting. In this case, the policy is quite clear and well-established by the Board and community action..."

Citation please?

"... and the technical basis for the policy is sound. It is also the responsibility of the president to clarify the consequences of such policies for ICANN operations. And to clarify that changes to policy require consensus processes, not working around the edges for proprietary purposes. If the Board disagrees with the president's interpretation, they have the power to act."

Actually, consensus policies must first be developed in accordance with ICANN bylaws through the various ICANN Service Organizations, a process that has in fact resulted in one solitary ICANN consensus policy issued to date since ICANN's formation: the UDRP.

Lynn continues, "Several people have asked for clarification of ICANN policy on this issue, and it is my job to respond. Furthermore, the community dialog on the subject of alternate roots has -- until the posting of my paper -- avoided the existing policy question completely."

Is Mr. Lynn not aware of his organization's activities, or is he simply threatened by them? The topic is under active consideration, with a General Assembly group of the DNSO currently discussing these issues, and the DNSO's Names Council scheduled to begin a discussion on the subject with a presentation in Stockholm (Forsyth paper/Mueller paper).

"Many of the proponents of alternate roots have also glossed over the technical issues. It was time to get both issues front and center in front of the community to stimulate a dialog."

Mr. Lynn clearly disagrees with the positions advanced and discussed by others, but there is no excuse for making a public display of feigning ignorance.

A mere tip of the publication iceberg:

- Alternative Roots and the Virtual Inclusive Root.
- Root Zone Definitions.

...a search on, a search engine that exclusively indexes domain policy related websites - currently 17, with the Afternic forums and ENUM lists missing - brings up 3,159 links. That's a lot of technical and policy discussion of alternate roots that the internet community isn't having, according to Lynn.

Back to Lynn's letter, "It is a missed opportunity that those who choose to attack the document do so on spurious procedural grounds [breach of ICANN bylaws?!] rather than provide constructive comment to the substance of the document. No on yet has pointed out to me anything in that document that is incorrect. I am sure there are corrections that need to be made -- which is why it was posted as a discussion draft ..."

Are we talking about a "discussion draft", or a "well-established policy"? Make up your mind Mr. Lynn!

"...but so far I have received no comments other than general allusions not backed up by facts."

Allusions indeed!



Link: Read the article with working reference links here.

Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy