[NCSG-Discuss] Closed Generics - a letter together

[Kathy Kleiman]

No, Milton, I disagree completely. Second levels, third levels and top 
levels are different. You can try all you want to wish it away, but you 
can't.  Network Solutions, Inc., back when it was THE REGISTRY AND 
REGISTRAR of .com, .org, .net and more operated in a way far different 
than you or I as registrants did.

Registries, whether you like it or not, are imbued by the ICANN 
Community (and through contract with ICANN) with obligations to the 
protect the security and stability of the Internet. These are NOT magic 
words, they are substantive commitments that registries work on every 
single day.

DNSSEC, the ability to lock domains and ensure that they have not been 
hijacked (among other features) is a Registry-level implementation.

The Applicant Guidebook preserves my view of the world, not yours. It 
imbues Registries with obligations towards ICANN, the ICANN Community, 
and especially the Internet. These are real obligations, and ones the 
Registries will take very seriously -- or lose their TLDs.

Kathy

> *From:*Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com]
>
> Because a domain name is not a Top Level Domain.
>
> */[Milton L Mueller] Sorry, Kathy, you're just wrong here. .FOO is a 
> domain name. FOO.FOO is a domain name. FOO.FOO.FOO is a domain name. 
> The DNS is recursive, is recursive, is recursive, is 
> recursive...(repeat 64 times)/*
>
> *//*
>
> If we follow your reasoning, there's no reason to perform extensive 
> Technical, Operational and Financial Showings/Review of New 
> Registries.  We don't examine registrants, so why should we examine 
> New gTLD Registries?
>
> *//*
>
> */[Milton L Mueller] BINGO! You've just unmasked ICANN. /*
>
> *//*
>
> */Fact is, there is _no_ reason to perform those showings other than 
> the very fervent and politically potent desire of trademark interests, 
> law enforcement, incumbent operators and governments to gain 
> regulatory leverage over the domain name users and market. And I 
> strongly suspect that you know that as well as I - but only when you 
> are performing in your normal role as domain name rights advocate and 
> not as lawyer for a client. ;-)/*
>
> *//*
>
> */"Extensive technical, operational and financial showings" are 
> regulatory mechanisms that reflect layer 9 policy demands. As layer 9 
> phenomena, they could be applied to SLDs as well as TLDs. Yes, the 
> scary thing about your argument, Kathy, is that we COULD examine SLD 
> registrants as intensively as we examine TLD registrants if the 
> political demand exists. Indeed, some countries already do so (we will 
> be visiting one in April). When you think up rationalizations for 
> those regulations at one level, you are providing fodder for their 
> application at any level./*
>
> *//*
>
> */Even in the most narrow technical sense, there is no difference. A 
> badly operated TLD is no more or less impactful on "Internet 
> stability" than a badly operated SLD. You may try to reply, "but wait, 
> if .ORG goes down then millions of people are affected" but I will 
> quickly reply "but wait, if FACEBOOK.COM goes down...." You get the 
> picture. What matters is how many people use it, not what level of the 
> DNS it is at. /*
>
> *//*
>
> */If you are basing your entire argument against closed generics on 
> the "special status" of one level of the DNS, you've lost the argument. /*
>
> *//*
>
> *//*
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130226/b9683e35/attachment-0001.html>