[dns-wg] Re: loadsaTLDs and the ICANN policy-making process

On 16 Oct 2009, at 19:05, David Conrad wrote:

> Not really sure this is relevant to DNS-WG, but...

You're probably right. At least we can agree on something. :-)

>> What's the point in engaging in a policy discussion about new gTLDs  
>> now?
>
> You're suggesting policies can never change once decided?

No, of course not. However it's hard to believe that the policy can be  
changed now when there appears to be a fait accompli for adding lots  
of TLDs. Besides, what's the point of adopting a policy of "no more  
TLDs" after "too many" have already been added? I doubt that sort of  
policy u-turn could withstand a challenge in the courts or an anti- 
trust action on competition or restraint of trade grounds.

> I know it is hard for some folks to believe, but ICANN staff really  
> does take the "ensure security and stability" aspect of what ICANN  
> does quite seriously.

A document from ICANN staff which in paraphrase says "it's possible to  
move .com to the root" (and will be taken out of context by others to  
advance those arguments) kind of contradicts what you just said David.  
I am sure you and your colleagues are sincere when you talk of taking  
security and stability very seriously. However the document we're  
discussing does raise reasonable doubts here. I have no problem with  
anyone producing this sort of text, *provided it's put in the proper  
context*: ie "with sufficient thrust pigs will fly". Saying it's  
technically possible to put .com in the root without properly  
explaining why this was impractical was/is irresponsible. Sorry. We  
have to agree to disagree here.

You said on this thread "Given the current system, it would be a  
stunningly bad _operational_ idea" to move .com to the root. It's a  
pity that February 08 document didn't say something similar, perhaps  
in more diplomatic terms.

> I won't bother trying to refute this as you appear to have your mind  
> made up that ICANN wants to destroy the Internet.

Now you're being silly. I'm very disappointed that you resorted to an  
ad hominem attack to what were reasonable comments.

> I will say that if you have any constructive suggestions on how to  
> improve the ability for the technical community to provide input,  
> I'd be interested in hearing them.

I'd be glad to do that and have already been thinking about this.