Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

[Jimmy Hess <mysidia () gmail com>]

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 9:55 AM, John Levine <johnl () iecc com> wrote:
> That has always been the case in the past.  Given the level of public
> unhappiness that the US Dep't of Commerce has with ICANN's plan to add
> zillions of new TLDs, and noting that several of the root servers are

Speaking of some public unhappiness with new TLD plan... if you hadn't noticed,
the DoC  published a notice  of inquiry regarding renewal of the ICANN
contract expiring in September
for the IANA functions....
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/FR_IANA_FurtherNOI_06102011.pdf

If not pleased with ICANN's performance it might be worth reading the
published DRAFT SOW for the renewal from the federal register and
Investigate if the proposed terms seem to provide sufficient
accountability/constraint.

If not,  it would be prudent to submit comments answering the
questions listed in the inquiry :)

Specifically,  regarding  "C.2.2.1.3.2 Responsibility and Respect for
Stakeholders ....
....
For delegation requests for new generic TLDS (gTLDs), the Contractor
shall include documentation to demonstrate how the proposed string has
received consensus support from relevant stakeholders and is supported
by the global public interest.".



> run by agencies of the US government, who knows what will happen in
> the future.

I'm not so sure volunteer root operators are in a position to editorialize
and for that to have a positive effect.  ICANN could go down the
path of stating that this causes internet stability  (due to operators
publishing
a partial root).

That would then be sufficient justification to  remove root server
operators from
the root zone, and use the proceeds of gTLD sales  and gTLD renewal fees
to hire (non-volunteer) operators,  under contract  requiring hired root
operators to publish exactly an ICANN sanctified root.

> R's,
> John
--
-JH