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:
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..."
"... 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."
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
"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:
- ROOT SERVER PRIMER.
- DNRC & CPSR STATEMENT BEFORE THE
SENATE ICANN HEARING.
- EU ICANN BOARD CANDIDATES' VIEWS, POSITIONS, PROJECTIONS.
- Alternative Roots and the Virtual Inclusive Root.
- Root Zone Definitions.
...a search on dnspolicy.com, 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.
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 ..."
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."