[council] Draft staff paper on "New TLD Questions" - CORRECTION NEEDED
marilynscade at hotmail.com
Thu Jun 23 07:59:30 UTC 2005
I meant to comment on Bret's note before. Sorry for the lateness of the
I am very concerned about the concept of "monetizing the TLD space" as seems
to be implied in the paper.
I recall we spent considerable debate on this concept in the days of the
IFWP, and have addressed in various ways since, even if indirectly.
One of the challenges that has emerged elsewhere, that is part of the threat
to ICANN, is that some entities believe that the technical elements -- IP
addresses, TLDS, even ccTLDs -- are a source of revenue, rather than a
resource used for the good of the Internet community.
I have thought that the community still supported a cost recovery model.
I know I can still speak for at least one multi national corporation on that
point, when it comes to both gTLDs and IP addresses. :-)
If ICANN is suggesting a monetizing of the DNS so to speak, that really
opens up a lot of issues -- and in my view, heightens the interest and
inclination of some governments to seek more regulatory oversight of ICANN.
I will also comment, as I have before, on the idea that the priority for a
registry operator must be first and foremost, technical and operational
capability, and stability. That is not to say that ICANN can prevent a
registry from "falling over", but indeed, there must be safeguards for the
registrant -- and a "adopted child" approach for the registry zone file, if
one does fall over. To say that is not ICANN's responsibility to address in
a pragmatic manner, raises yet new questions to global business users.
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Bret Fausett
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 11:34 AM
To: Philip Sheppard
Cc: olof.nordling at icann.org; council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] Draft staff paper on "New TLD Questions" - CORRECTION
Philip is correct, and I support his recommended change. I would add
that the matrix concept itself is problematic, as some of the groups to
be consulted are too vague and sufficiently far outside ICANN's control
to make inclusion in a decision matrix appropriate (e.g. "academics,"
"trade organizations"). We should certainly strive for broad outreach,
but vaguely defined groups aren't in the critical path of the
As currently phrased, the questions in the matrix also assume that
certain controversial questions already have been resolved in a
particular way. For example: "Determine appropriate uses for one-time,
positive revenue derived from allocation process." I'm not certain we
will recommend that ICANN charge registry fees in excess of its actual
costs. Previous allocation efforts have been based on a cost-recovery
method. I am certainly aware of the "auction" concept, but I think the
question is still open as to whether the wealthiest registry operator is
necessary the best choice. I expect that developing nations will have
significant concerns about allocating global resources in a way that
takes businesses based in their countries out of the running.
I would recommend separating the matrix from the list of questions, if
not deleting it entirely.
Philip Sheppard wrote:
> thank you for the posting of this paper.
> I and my constituency will spend time to fully review but for now I
> believe there is one essential correction that needs to be made
> *_before it goes any further_*.
> The GNSO is the policy development body on gTLD matters within ICANN.
> The GNSO is not one of a range of bodies to be consulted. The
> consultation of other bodies is being done to inform the GNSO.
> Please change the matrix of contributions to show the GNSO sits at the
> top of the input tree and all other consultations feed into policy
> development within the GNSO.
> Thank you.
> Philip Sheppard
More information about the council