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

Jim,

On Oct 16, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Jim Reid wrote:
>>> 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.

"It ain't over until the fat lady sings".  I suppose a lot depends on the definition of "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.

The proposal out of the root scaling study that appears to have universal acceptance (although some may quibble about the definition) is that an "early warning system" should be deployed to ensure that any changes that could result in instability would be detected prior to instability being caused.

>> 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. [...] Sorry. We have to agree to disagree here.

Guess so.

> 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.

"Operational challenges are a limiting factor, ..." would seem pretty diplomatic to me.

Regards,
-drc