[ncdnhc-discuss] TLDs not created by ICANN: the purposes ofraising concerns

[Marc Schneiders]

Hi Vany,

On Sun, 7 Oct 2001, at 13:32 [=GMT-0400], Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:

> I think you raise valid concerns.
> 
> 1. Legitimacy:  I personally consider that ICANN has legitmacy.  It is
> my believe that all those organizations that applies for membership in
> ICANN constituencies is because they believe that ICANN is legimit.  If
> not...why to be a member of a constituency?   

I have not completely given up on ICANN, but I am close to it. The
fact that a lot of people participate in it, does not prove that
much. Some of them, at least, make money by doing so. From a formal
perspective ICANN has no legitimacy at all.

> 2.  Natural competition with Alternate TLDs:  Yes, there is competition
> between such TLDs...I can select .TRAVEL or .VIAJES, but only one
> company is offering it and has the totall monopoly of both TLDs. 

This is, I am sure, true, if you say so. On the other hand there are
so many alt TLD providers that it should be possible to get a domain
in an alt TLD of your choice without being tied to a single
organization, as is the case with ICANN, setting policies, rules etc
for everything, making sure it gets enough money for each domain
registered (tax!). My ideal would be a lean organization a la ICANN,
that approves TLDs (but not for $50,000 as an entry into a regulated
market) on the basis of working DNS, whois. If that would happen all
serious players, both commercial and non-commercial, would have a fair
chance. In fact that would solve all problems, including those of Dave
Crocker.

> And
> the Registrars are suppoused to offer
> such TLDs and they cannot have access to offer them.

There is really no need for the weird ICANN system of registrars and
registries if there is true and open competition. That system was
devised to serve a regulated market. Who defends a regulated market
still?
 
> 3.  Censorship on the TLD level:  Marc, I am not requesting a censorship
> neither making laws to make certain practices illegal. What I am calling
> is to join efforts to offer the stability and transparency etc, etc,
> etc...inside the Domain Name Space to the Internet Community.  I
> personally think that if DNSO join efforts with ICANN Board in order to
> stablish an Action Plan on how to do this while at the same time
> achieves the diversity in the domain name space that all we are
> expecting for, then the practice of going outside ICANN (which is not an
> illegal practice, and I don't expect the law be involved in this issue)
> will decrease.  

I want this too. I see no moves from ICANN in this regard. On the
contrary. They are now trying to get At Large stalled. And I would not
be suprised if some serious topics are rushed through again, without
any serious input from us, at the next meeting. Say, another attempt
in the context of 'security' to blacken alt roots. 

Recent performance of ICANN has made me very sceptical.

Best regards,

Marc

 > Best Regards >
Vany > 
> 
> 
> Marc Schneiders wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, 6 Oct 2001, at 22:51 [=GMT-0400], Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
> > 
> > > Dear Fellows:
> > >
> > > Due to the recent concerns about issues raised by me regarding "TLDs not
> > > created by ICANN..." in the NC agenda, the below text
> > > is the explanation of the purpose of the inclusion of such a subject,
> > > which it is, indeed the develop of the what I want to say during the NC
> > > teleconference.
> > >
> > > The purpose to raise concerns in the Names Council about "TLDs not
> > > created by ICANN..." is to create an awareness of how
> > > such business is affecting in several ways the sectors represented by
> > > all DNSO Constituencies and all Registrants, to point out the
> > > risks that can imply to welcome companies that offers such TLDs who
> > > bypassed ICANN Process, how unfair is this (the business of offering
> > > TLDs not created by ICANN) for our DNSO partners in constituencies as
> > > gTLDs, ccTLDs and Registrars (no competitiveness since such TLDs only
> > > can be offered by the company that promotes them)
> > 
> > This sounds ridiculous to me. ICANN operates a market of
> > scarcity. Competition was artificially introduced into this at a new
> > level, that of the registrar. In alt TLDs there is natural competition
> > on the registry level. If you don't like .LOW (free, by the way), you
> > can go for .SHOP.
> > 
> > > since they are making
> > > their efforts to always be in good standing with ICANN processes while
> > > others are not...How this could obligates ISPs if they eventually
> > > doesn't changes
> > > their configuration files of their DNS server in order to meet customer
> > > demands...To point out how Businesses and Non-Commercial sectors are
> > > affected since such constituencies cannot watch the interests of such
> > > sectors properly if any policy or even technical issue regarding Domain
> > > Names inside such TLDs not created by ICANN is addressed in the
> > > DNSO...To point out how the Registrant doesn't have any guarantees
> > > neither have a place to complain inside the ICANN structure (as, for
> > > example, that ICANN recieves complaints of Registrants about Registrars
> > > by giving a following up of such complaints)...
> > 
> > How interesting a point. I thought this was one of the things that did
> > not work very well: complaining to ICANN. By the way, how about this
> > INFO mess? DNS is still *not* up for most domains registered during
> > landrush and after, at least not for those that I know about. Has
> > anyone one that I can look at, which was not done through Tucows (who
> > also wrote the registry software...)? (I do not mean sunrise names,
> > they do work). So stability? I have never seen a more unstable TLD.
> > 
> > > All of these in order to
> > > raise an awareness that the NC members recognize the importance of all
> > > of these in order that be addressed in each constituency so every
> > > constituency comes up with positions regarding this way to attempt to
> > > expand Domain Names space without following the proper process given by
> > > ICANN.
> > >
> > > Also to remind them that, at the end, the damage is done to the
> > > Registrant who is trusting that such TLDs are legimit TLDs as .COM,
> > > .ORG, .NET, .BIZ, .INFO, etc...
> > 
> > Why do you not worry about the legitimicy of ICANN? Work on that, and
> > people will be happy to participate in the ICANN process.
> > 
> > > And finally to make a call to ICANN through DNSO to all work together in
> > > how we can find a solution to stop the disemination of this practice in
> > > order to offer a Domain Name Space that keeps its stability,
> > > transparency and confuseless that until now, had being achieved.
> > 
> > Censorship on the TLD level? Are you serious? Do you think outlawing
> > alt TLDs will make ICANN more legitimate?
> > 
> > > Any attempt to expand the Domain Names Space without the ICANN
> > > Coordination/Requirements is an attempt to disrupt the stability of the
> > > Domain Name Space
> > 
> > Repeating this often does not make it true.
> > 
> > > and also is bypassing all of those people, groups and
> > > organizations that in good will is participating and following ICANN
> > > guidelines and requirements for a better Coordination of the Domain
> > > Names Space of the Internet.
> > 
> > The legitimicy of ICANN again...
> > 
> > --
> > Marc at Schneiders.ORG
> > 
> > http://www.dot-low.net/ Free Domains in .LOW.
> 
> -- 
> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
> Information Technology Specialist
> Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
> Tel: (507) 317-0169
> http://www.sdnp.org.pa
> e-mail:  vany at sdnp.org.pa
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>