[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: Comment on Latest NC draft - decentralization of DNSO functions

[James Love]

Well, this is for Vint and Marilyn,

  I agree that the Internet is global.   Does it necessarily follow that
ICANN has to make all the decisions on the globe?   Sure, there are *some*
things that ICANN could claim it should do at a global level, and we are
quite willing to go with this.  For example, if ICANN really wants to ensure
that every domain name registratrar has an effective alternative dispute
resolution policy in place with regard to trade mark disputes, one can at
least understand that..  Or, if ICANN wants to set some minimum consumer
protections for all global registrars, well, maybe this would be a good
thing (although hard to say why it needs to act in the case of the ccTLDs).
But does ICANN have to be the global gatekeeper on the creation of new TLDs?
Not really.  This ends up being a bottleneck, as witnessed by the overly
complex and expensive process for applying for new TLDs, which involves
expensive (rent seeking by ICANN) lotteries just to apply, and no real
explanation why some win and some lose.     I would agree that ICANN could
usefully coorindate this function, to ensure that basic stuff is taken care
of, such as coorindation of uniquen TLD strings, or some minimum trademark
and consumer protection issues.  But that shouldn't be used to control
innovation and competition, as it is now.    If ICANN wants us to trust it
with power, it should be able to trust others with some power too.  If the
European, Commission, or a regional DNSO for Europe wants to approve a new
hundred new TLDs, or even France, why stand in the way?  Just saying it "has
to be global" isn't enough.   Clearly ICANN is trying to make some things
centralized that do not need to be centralized.   ICANN told the travel
industry to change the name of .air to .aero.  ICANN would not allow the
World Health Organization to create .health, or the International
Confederation of Free Trade Unions to create .union. It has no real
experitise to make these decisions, and no real to control  these decisions.
If you decentralized the authority to create a new TLD, but ICANN could
exert whatever minimum global regulation is needed on uniqueness, trademarks
and consumer protection, then ICANN  would have less power, but also a lot
less problems and politics.

Bill Gates might say that because the Internet is global, everyone should
use his software.  Real Networks could make the same claim.  IMO, we need
global action on spam.  Does that mean that ICANN should be involved in
these and other decisions?     The Internet did not become what it is today
because of top down control.

  Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "vint cerf" <vinton.g.cerf at wcom.com>
> Jamie please look at the side-effects even the modest expansion that has
occurred -
> numerous lawsuits surrounding sunrise, landrush, trademarks, etc - there
are
> many operational and policy (and apparently regulatory) issues surrounding
the
> DNS. Decentralization will only exacerbate pressure for common handling of
> the policy aspects. The system is global and coherence seems to be of
increasing,
> not decreasing importance.
>
>
    [snip]

> >Decentralized DNSO councils or national governments should be free to
> >address issues concerning consumer protection for persons who register
> >domains, cybersquatting, privacy and other matters relating to domain
name
> >registration.
>
> I think this won't work given the ability of every user to reach every
> jurisdiction for service and access to information.
>
>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade at att.com>
To: "James Love" <james.love at cptech.org>; "NCDNHC List"
<discuss at icann-ncc.org>; "Harold J. Feld" <hfeld at mediaaccess.org>
Cc: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs at digitel.net>; <philip.sheppard at aim.be>;
<jcohen at shapirocohen.com>; "vint cerf" <vinton.g.cerf at wcom.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:32 AM
Subject: RE: Comment on Latest NC draft - decentralization of DNSO functions


Jamie, thanks for including me in your post. I don't see  much that I agree
with, but am happy to respond back to you after some further thought.

On initial read, I challenge that regional councils meet the geographic
diversity requirement in a global Internet environment.  :-(

It doesn't work to have regionally selected "g" TLDs, in  my view, but you
must have some ideas in mind for creating "regionalized islands" rather than
keeping the present global nature of the Internet.  You seem to be
supporting that the different regions would interact among themselves. This
would not, in  my mind, support other key concerns about free flow  of
information across national borders, which the global Internet supports.
While that is not ICANN's responsibility, ensuring that the infrastructure
supports it and that it is a "global" interconnected Internet does seem to
be key...

I am interested in learning more about why you are proposing an approach
that doesn't seem to be reflective of the nature of the Internet.

Finally, on the issue of whether the DNSO is reflective of all users' -- non
commercial users are supposed to be represented through the present non
commercial constituency.  That leaves individuals, as users, I assume, who
are  not represented. Or are you saying that non  commercial users, such as
the Red Crescent Society, etc. are also not represented via your
constituency?  I just need clarification which groups you believe are
omitted.

More later, probably.  :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: James Love [mailto:james.love at cptech.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 8:18 AM
To: NCDNHC List; Harold J. Feld
Cc: Ken Stubbs; philip.sheppard at aim.be; jcohen at shapirocohen.com; vint
cerf; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Subject: Comment on Latest NC draft - decentralization of DNSO functions


The NCC should propose that ICANN begin to decentralize DNSO functions, in
areas where the central planning model is inappropriate.  In particular,
national governments or regional DNSO councils should be able to authorize
new TLDs, subject to coordination on uniqueness of TLD strings.  There is no
compelling reason for the decision on the creation of a new TLD be made by a
single central body.   ICANN has failed to expand the root, and is suffering
from capture by incumbent registry interests.

There are legitmate problems concerning the protection of trademarks, and
ICANN can recommend practices for TLD operators that address these concerns,
including services such as the UDRP, or approaches such as sunrise
proceedures.  Governments or regional bodies that seek to authorize or
manage TLD registries on a decentralized basis should consult with ICANN on
mechanims to protect trademark owners.  Different regions or governments may
adopt somewhat different approachs on issues such as sunrise protection or
alternatives to the UDRP, or example to reflected different cultural and
legal traditions, as is the case today with ccTLDs.

Decentralized DNSO councils or national governments should be free to
address issues concerning consumer protection for persons who register
domains, cybersquatting, privacy and other matters relating to domain name
registration.

It should be noted that the present DNSO is quite unbalanced in terms of
user interests.

  Jamie

--------------------------------
James Love mailto:james.love at cptech.org
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040