Re: [icann-eu] Re: [ICANN-EU] ccTLDs to ask for BoD seats?

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Roberto,
I do not really understand you. You seem to defend/accept options you dislike
and which - i do hope - will never happen.

At 18:40 27/11/00, you wrote:
>Jefsey,
>>I am worried bout your quoting the Yokohama positions as until recently
>>Peter Dengate Trush who is one of the leader of the ccTLDs position was a
>>consultant in the GAC NZ delegation. Also because Peter de Blanc and him
>>are new management of the ccTLD constituency. Also because in MDR some
>>ccTLDs supported alliances so different from previous ones (just look at
>>the list of the represented countries - and the different types of ccTLD
>>management - and think they unanimoulsy voted the text of an unique
>>contract template).
>
>I don't think that the GAC position has changed.
>But I agree that the ccTLD position has changed ;>)
>Are you assuming that the Governments will change position in the future 
>because the ccTLDs did?

I am assuming form that ccTLDs are coming from their respective countries, 
are either supported or authorized by their local government and knowing 
their position (example Peter D. Trush) . I would be very surprised that 
these people want to conflict with their own government, and all of them at 
the same time.

 From inputs of several government reps., including two influent members of 
the GAC, IMHO the ccTLDs' move is exploratory: either a private
solution may be found with the USG delegating to the ICANN or the Govs will 
step in.

>>At this stage I believe that GAC positions should be considered very
>>carefully as the disputes between the ICANN and the ccTLDs are (most
>>probably) the image of the tensions between the USA and the rest of (some)
>>world.
>
>As I said before, one thing is the position of the Governments, other 
>thing is the position of the ccTLDs, which is only related to a question 
>of "taxation vs. representation".

I think this issue has changed. It was true before as long as the ICANN was 
an USG body. The extension of the USG/ICANN agreement on Sept 30th  has 
postponed the privatization of the ICANN in Staff's mind but not in the 
ccTLDs'. Governments are just watching.  The issue is no more "US taxes" 
and IANA approval, it is "LIC legitimated services operators" asking their 
cooperative organization what return it offers them for their yearly 
contribution. They say "we pay for one third of the budget, we want to 
control were our money goes". There is nothing new under the sun .. except 
".coop" and ICANN is to move from icann.gov to icann.coop and still is 
icann.org.

>In other words, when the ccTLDs ask for a "CCSO", this has nothing to do 
>with the "representation of the users" in the sense that Twomey gave to 
>it, but "representation of themselves", i.e. the interests of the ccTLDs 
>as businesses.

I do not know who is Twomey nor the sense it gave to it. I know the sense I 
give it to it, the one the ccTLDs give to it in their "Best Practice" and I 
know that this makes the interests of the ccTLDs businesses linked to 
@large interests through LICs. I also know that this should be also the 
best interests of Govs and Staff, if we want to be able to say "we the 
icann" someday what should be our target.

>>You obviously want to support the ICANN and stability. I feel that the
>>statu quo satisfies nobody, starting with Staff and BoD. (I think) they
>>need our support to move in the right direction. And that direction is
>>certainly an "augmented.root" with the root service enlarged to ccTLDs and
>>TLDs for better co-responsibility and a revised distribution of the forces
>>within the ICANN so the different stakeholders may become together "WE the
>>ICANN" and rule out the "THEY the ICANN squatters" many still think with
>>reason. This obviouisly calling first on a legal stability (trhough a
>>bylaws modification mecanism) to permit a further operations stability
>>through an enlarged RSSAC member of a TLDSO including cc,g and p TLDs.
>
>I respect your opinion, but even if the "status quo" does not make me 
>happy, the "augmented.root" will make me even more unhappy (and I 
>definitively see this a step in the *wrong* direction).

That I do not understand. The only alternative to the "augmented .root" and 
afterward to the "extended.root" is the wild.root you do not want 
installed. We have to be realist the a.root and the alt.root are over as we 
known them. The ccTLDs, the iDNs and the privatization have changed the 
situation. Alt.root have won in that sense that its concepts have been 
acknowledged but at the same time has lost as the only future is a 
stabilization of the DNS under an enlarged RSSAC (for co-responsibility, 
better reliability and stability) opening progressively to a million of 
TLDs (this option comes from a Director at the GAC meeting).

>Moreover, if we are unable to govern the situation with one centralized 
>root, we have to admit that the chances of govern a multiple root 
>situation will be even smaller.

Absolutely. This is why we must do everything, now people have understood 
how the DNS really works, to keep a stable and reliable root system. When 
60% of the root system must be operational for the root to perform its job 
and 10 out 13 servers are located in the USA, the root system cannot be 
considered as stable from the point of view of Japan, China, France, 
Germany, UK etc..., etc...

>The introduction of new additional alternate roots will be just a matter 
>of time (and money), and the ISPs pointing to one or the other only a 
>matter of economic alliances. It may be good, in the end, but surely will 
>be different, and in any case will be a situation in which I do not see 
>any role for ICANN or similar. Maybe for Microsoft or SAIC, but not for an 
>international body that will try to take into account the different needs 
>of the different parts of the world.

I think you are wrong here, while your usual opinion is different and quite 
right. The evolution of the root requires a technical evolution of the DNS 
system. The immediate need is political, ie include the largest number of 
organizations in the RSSAC to define the DNS evolution and to forget about 
CRADA: DNS evolution must be sponsored by the ICANN, not by the USG. This 
evolution should permit the root system to have a very large number of root 
servers, at least two or three per country to provide reliability. This 
will permit national TLDs. Frankly I do not fear that: this is in the 
nature of things and the role of the ICANN will be to help them concerting 
together. If for a while it means distributed roots systems I do not mind: 
they still will be the same root. This is the way the alt.root works.

>I may be wrong, and it may well be that the ccTLDs will feel that their 
>interest is better protected if they go for a new root.

There is only two possible roots: either real and the ICANN is the one 
managing it (may be not that ICANN) and a virtual root (the one the user 
decides to use). If ccTLDs were going for a new root, the ICANN would be 
obliged to follow and the organization set up by ccTLDs to establish and 
manage their root would be the real ICANN, the present ICANN being the US 
ICANN. ccTLDs are not demanding a new root, they are demanding a new ICANN, 
which BTW is the initial ICANN under the time frame initially accepted and 
the initial bylaws.

>Well, we will have to live with that, because once this is started, we 
>will never go back to the single root.

This is why we have to move fast. The single point of failure of the 
Internet is the ICANN Staff. They just do not have the time to do 
everything they are supposed to do, mostly because they do not control 
their environment (and because of the complex way they do it under Joe 
Sims). The ccTLDs - and many others - actually tell them and the BoD: show 
you get rid of the USG, show you control the RSSAC, show you are worth what 
we are paying you for, or leave us do the job.

Also, I think you do not have yet fully understood the way the alt.root 
works and why it is resilient. The augmented.root, ie the a.root being 
managed as the alt.root system among others, has that resilience if ICANN 
manages it correctly (they may call on Richard Sexton).

>But I take bets that if we go that way some of the current ccTLDs will be 
>out of business in a very short time, because their only reason for being 
>in business now is the fact that they are delegated by their own 
>Government to be in the *unique* root, and that they will not stand 
>competition.

I take the bets that if some ccTLDs go the alt.root it will only be paid or 
required by their Governments, as China today. But again the alt.root is 
many TLDs plus the a.root, the augmented.root is the a.root + plenty of TLDs.

>This is why I think that the "nuclear option" is only a threat, and that a 
>lot of ccTLDs are against the decision to *press the red button*.
>We will see ;>).

A nuclear arsenal is made not to be used. And the thread of it being used, 
seems to work well from what I understand.

What I say is: "we are several individuals who may help the ICANN, the 
ccTLDs, the TLDs, the RSSAC, the IETF, the GAC, etc... to make the right 
moves. We have to work hard together into that direction because otherwise 
the end result will be the same, but we dislike a lot the way, the costs 
and the delays to get at it".

Jefsey