FC: ICANN launches attack, condemns alternate roots for domain names

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Wed May 30 2001 - 07:19:51 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Stu Baker replies to Echelon post, defends U.S. intel agencies"

    ICANN's "discussion draft" on the topic, released this week:
    http://www.icann.org/stockholm/unique-root-draft.htm
    
    Summary: ICANN is touting the principle of "a unique, authoritative root" 
    for the domain name system, saying it's "a rerequisite to Internet 
    stability." ICANN says: "It is essential that operations involving 
    'alternative' DNS roots be conducted in a controlled manner, so that they 
    do not adversely affect those who have not consented to participate in 
    them." But who decides what's a "controlled manner" or not?
    
    Yesterday I sent out another draft discussion paper on alternate roots 
    (http://www.politechbot.com/p-02077.html). One respondent said -- in 
    response to my offer of "If you want to write a non-antagonistic response 
    I'd be happy to send it out" -- the following:
    
    >I am not able to do so. The short version would be "all he is proposing is 
    >replacing ICANN with a different group". The longer version would document 
    >the history of the lack of agreement of the rogue^H^H^H^H^Halternate 
    >roots, the fact that first-come-first-served failed the early alternative 
    >roots (.biz and .xxx are great examples), and the fact that some TLD names 
    >are worth so many of orders of magnitude more than others (.biz and .xxx 
    >are great examples) that the new group would have the same level of 
    >financial political ugliness that ICANN has, but probably distributed 
    >differently. Or, to put it shortly, "Because of money and politics, ICANN 
    >sucks and so will whatever you create; get over it".
    
    -Declan
    
    ***********
    
    Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 15:30:03 -0400
    From: William Allen Simpson <wsimpsonat_private>
    To: declanat_private
    Subject: Re: FC: Alternate roots for domain names explained in IETF draft
    References: <20010529103202.A18068at_private>
    
    Pardon me, but there are a number of fallacious premises in this document, 
    well beyond the border into disingenousness.
    
    In particular: "The origin of these alternative roots can be found in
    the rough consensus and running code behind Draft Postel[4] (which was
    subverted by the gTLD-MOU...)."
    
      - the rough consensus and running code was that only IANA approved and
        delegated iTLDs.  See Postel[4] page 3, "delegated ... by the
        authority of the IANA"; ibid page 6 "The IANA continues to supervise
        and control the creation and management aspects of the iTLDs", etc.
    
      - is it possible for a principle author and signer of the gTLD-MOU to
        "subvert" her/his own writings?  It is apparent to all those of us
        who actually discussed this issue with Jon Postel that he was not
        in favor of "virtual" creation of "alternative" roots.  Adamantly
        opposed, was my personal impression....
    
      - The process specified was not followed by these "virtual" roots,
        especially [ibid] page 6:
    
        5.10. Registries pay for charters, and the fees collected are kept in
           a fund managed by the ISOC and used for the iTLD process (such as
           for insurance against an iTLD registry withdrawal or collapse),
           and possibly to support an evolved future funding model for the
           IANA.
    
        Which ones paid?  Funny how these "alternatives" always seem to be
        more interesting in gathering moneys for themselves than funding
        community infrastructure.
    
    Anyone can send a draft to the IETF.  It is an open process.  That
    doesn't mean it will become adopted as a standard.
    
    Heck, even Postel wrote a draft suggesting that registries should be
    awarded iTLDs by annual lottery, to avoid any hint of capture or
    "ownership" of the underlying service.  Note that one doesn't seem
    to be cited by Higgs....
    
    In any case, this draft is clearly against the existing consensus.
    More like an April fools draft.
    
    William Allen Simpson
    
    ************
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 30 2001 - 08:56:46 PDT