[discuss] MS TLD class: the consensual solution?
mg at telepresse.com
Tue Apr 15 00:13:00 UTC 2014
I change the subject as I find this proposition a break through.
If I read you correctly you say; there are two claims
- ICANN is an MS bottom-up process that complies with the NTIA expectations.
- the DNS is a top-down hierachy and the difficulty is the
introduction of TLD in the root.
And you respond; this is not a problem if TLDs are MS bottom-up
structures, so everything is MS bottom-up. From DN to root. This
seems to say the problem is the oligarchy's profit which brings no
added-value, so let remove it. And the entire issue is solved?
At 15:38 14/04/2014, JFC Morfin wrote:
>At 11:40 14/04/2014, Joseph Alhadeff wrote:
>>It would seem that such a committee should be made up of a broad
>>cross section of stakeholders. All groups have a stake in these
>>discussions, not just self appointed representatives of the public
>>interest. We keep on hearing the need for openness and
>>transparency and then see the concepts applied only in favor of the
>>proponent of a specific idea... What is needed is an open,
>>inclusive and transparent process with due recognition for those
>>functions that require technical skills and the operational
>>realities of the governance and oversight mechanisms with the
>>objective of meeting the NTIA requirements.
>The real problem with an IANA committee replacing the NTIA irt. the
>root is to address not the "introduction in the root" but rather the
>***undemocratic*** allocation of TLDs to ***non-cooperative***
>operators, i.e. why and who is to make money on the common good
>represented by a naming category. This is a highly political decision.
>Question: why would it be political when the matter is not political?
>A TLD is a common register tag, for all the TLD zone registrants to
>wear. The idea of making money from TLDs came with ICANN because
>ICANN needed a budget and chose to tax domain names. ccTLDs do not
>pay taxes to ICANN and work equally well. They can contribute in
>proportion to the added value they deem to obtain from ICANN. This
>puts ICANN in QoS competition with itself. This is shareware.
>The ownership and management of an MS TLD actually belong to its
>registrants (several ccTLDs are non-profit associations, e.g.
>http://afnic.fr). DNS MSism means to be owned and managed on an
>MSist basis, top-down of the DNS hierarchy. This should be the only
>condition to enter the root. This means no committee, but a clerk
>and a NIC.COOP equivalent procedure. Whoever wants to start an MS
>TLD project would then have to register and document the project as
>being MS cooperative, for example on "http://tld.coop", on a first
>come first serve basis. Anyone could challenge it during its sunrise period.
>This has simple consequences:
>- there cannot be any confusion between TLDs and TMs, unless a TM
>holder wants to delegate their TM to the stakeholders of a TLD.
>- a DNS equilibrium should be easy to reach: MS TLD management will
>most probably result in at-cost DNs that people will favor. This is
>true democratic market competition.
>DNSA.org is, therefore, going to introduce an IETF Draft to
>dedicate, on a test basis within the ICANN/ICP-3 framework, an "MS"
>class to TLDs to be managed on an MS basis. Any stakeholder who
>wants to be a co-author is welcome.
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss