TR: Une "Fondation DNS" alimentée par l'ICANN ?
Hi May be it is a subject where Ralos and Alac must have a say? See the proposal of the W3C to create a Trust Fund to help standardisation organization to fulfil there mandates. All the best Sébastien Bachollet Président sebastien.bachollet@isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr -----Message d'origine----- De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr] Envoyé : mercredi 16 janvier 2008 16:02 À : gt-international@nic.fr Objet : Une "Fondation DNS" alimentée par l'ICANN ? Dans le cadre de la consultation de l'ICANN sur les modes d'allocation des noms de domaine à un caractère dans les gTLDs (ex: a.com) le W3C a fait une intéressante proposition ici : http://forum.icann.org/lists/allocationmethods/msg00033.html Il s'agirait de créer un Trust Fund avec l'argent issu des enchères ou autres, en vue de financer les organismes de développement des standards comme W3C, IETF ou UNICODE. -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: 01 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr ***************************** No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.4/1227 - Release Date: 16/01/2008 01:40 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.6/1231 - Release Date: 18/01/2008 11:55
Hi. I think Beau mentioned this last month. I wondered then why the standards community would need another cash cow from ICANN. ISOC already gets $5 (or $6, $7, $8?) million a year from .ORG and a good proportion of that goes to the IETF and RFC editor. W3C is an industry association, doesn't the Internet industry think it worth supporting? Not as if it's an industry short on cash. This proposal is referring to selling off single letter/digit names at the second level, right? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-letter_second-level_domains> <http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/unsponsored/registry-agmt-appk-26apr01....> And I guess just names under COM, NET and ORG (?) With the expectation that each of those still on the reserved lists would be worth millions? (t.com How much might AT&T pay for its US stock market ticker symbol? etc.) But before deciding how to spend the cash, wouldn't it be better for the ALS, RALOs and ALAC to discuss if it thinks selling off single letter/digit names is a good idea? Does ICANN have the right to sell of these potential names? Personal preference, I'd much prefer any cash to be used for developing nations, example support for ccTLDs (technical excellence in all domains, i.e. "Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet.") Thanks, Adam At 3:49 PM +0100 1/18/08, Sébastien Bachollet wrote:
Hi May be it is a subject where Ralos and Alac must have a say? See the proposal of the W3C to create a Trust Fund to help standardisation organization to fulfil there mandates. All the best
Sébastien Bachollet Président sebastien.bachollet@isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr
-----Message d'origine----- De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr] Envoyé : mercredi 16 janvier 2008 16:02 À : gt-international@nic.fr Objet : Une "Fondation DNS" alimentée par l'ICANN ?
Dans le cadre de la consultation de l'ICANN sur les modes d'allocation des noms de domaine à un caractère dans les gTLDs (ex: a.com) le W3C a fait une intéressante proposition ici : http://forum.icann.org/lists/allocationmethods/msg00033.html
Il s'agirait de créer un Trust Fund avec l'argent issu des enchères ou autres, en vue de financer les organismes de développement des standards comme W3C, IETF ou UNICODE.
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: 01 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr *****************************
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.4/1227 - Release Date: 16/01/2008 01:40
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.6/1231 - Release Date: 18/01/2008 11:55
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Adam Peake ha scritto:
Personal preference, I'd much prefer any cash to be used for developing nations, example support for ccTLDs (technical excellence in all domains, i.e. "Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet.")
I'd be extremely concerned if ICANN started taking the attitude that it has the right to extract arbitrarily high amounts of money from registrants to fund activities that are not directly connected with its own operations and mission. I'm fine with ~$0.20 per domain, I'm fine with supporting developing country ccTLDs or the IGF (or the At Large ;) if there's enough coming from it, but no one tasked ICANN with being the Treasure Ministry of the Internet, let alone deciding how to redistribute money from the "undeserving" to the "deserving". -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
This would be seen as a tax. On 19/01/2008, Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
Adam Peake ha scritto:
Personal preference, I'd much prefer any cash to be used for developing nations, example support for ccTLDs (technical excellence in all domains, i.e. "Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet.")
I'd be extremely concerned if ICANN started taking the attitude that it has the right to extract arbitrarily high amounts of money from registrants to fund activities that are not directly connected with its own operations and mission. I'm fine with ~$0.20 per domain, I'm fine with supporting developing country ccTLDs or the IGF (or the At Large ;) if there's enough coming from it, but no one tasked ICANN with being the Treasure Ministry of the Internet, let alone deciding how to redistribute money from the "undeserving" to the "deserving". -
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Franck Martin franck.martin@gmail.com http://www.peachymango.org/ "Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question" G. Bachelard
At 6:32 AM +1200 1/19/08, Franck Martin wrote:
This would be seen as a tax.
I don't agree. It would be a one time sale, the eventual registrant free to buy or not. Taxes are fees imposed on someone/some entity. A sale of reserved names would be more like a govt selling off land or buildings it owned. Do you think ISOC's revenue from .ORG is a tax? Adam
On 19/01/2008, Vittorio Bertola <<mailto:vb@bertola.eu>vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
Adam Peake ha scritto:
Personal preference, I'd much prefer any cash to be used for developing nations, example support for ccTLDs (technical excellence in all domains, i.e. "Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet.")
I'd be extremely concerned if ICANN started taking the attitude that it has the right to extract arbitrarily high amounts of money from registrants to fund activities that are not directly connected with its own operations and mission. I'm fine with ~$0.20 per domain, I'm fine with supporting developing country ccTLDs or the IGF (or the At Large ;) if there's enough coming from it, but no one tasked ICANN with being the Treasure Ministry of the Internet, let alone deciding how to redistribute money from the "undeserving" to the "deserving". -
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Franck Martin <mailto:franck.martin@gmail.com>franck.martin@gmail.com <http://www.peachymango.org/> http://www.peachymango.org/ "Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question" G. Bachelard
Relevant to this thread: <http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-18jan08.htm> "ICANN Seeks Expressions of Interest from Auction Design Experts" 18 January 2008 ICANN is seeking expressions of interest from entities experienced in developing and managing auction processes. ICANN has identified several areas where auctions might be an appropriate tool, such as the efficient disposition of data from terminated registrars and registries, the allocation of single-character second-level domain names, and perhaps, resolution of contention between competing commercial applicants for identical strings in the application process for new generic Top Level Domains. (etc)
At 6:48 PM +0100 1/18/08, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
Adam Peake ha scritto:
Personal preference, I'd much prefer any cash to be used for developing nations, example support for ccTLDs (technical excellence in all domains, i.e. "Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet.")
I'd be extremely concerned if ICANN started taking the attitude that it has the right to extract arbitrarily high amounts of money from registrants to fund activities that are not directly connected with its own operations and mission. I'm fine with ~$0.20 per domain, I'm fine with supporting developing country ccTLDs or the IGF (or the At Large ;)
sympathetic with this view. However:
if there's enough coming from it, but no one tasked ICANN with being the Treasure Ministry of the Internet, let alone deciding how to redistribute money from the "undeserving" to the "deserving".
Too late. Already done with .ORG. Decision made purely on the grounds of who was most deserving, technical criteria met by many applicants. ISOC revenues now some millions of dollars each year. I'm not sure I agree a sale of a very limited number reserved second level names could be seen as extracting "arbitrarily high amounts of money from registrants". I don't see a user harm issue here. The choice to buy or not would be with the potential buyer, there would be less than 100 (90 max?) no one is forced to do anything. I don't see anything negative for the potential registrant. Who owns the right to profit from reserved names might be interesting... VeriSign? IANA which reserved the names way back: if IANA then does that mean ICANN or US Govt? (remembering the fate of the Intellectual Infrastructure Fund fund, revenues from pre-ICANN registrations.) Adam
-- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Continuing the discussion started by Adam and Vittorio:
if there's enough coming from it, but no one tasked ICANN with being the Treasure Ministry of the Internet, let alone deciding how to redistribute money from the "undeserving" to the "deserving".
Too late. Already done with .ORG. Decision made purely on the grounds of who was most deserving, technical criteria met by many applicants. ISOC revenues now some millions of dollars each year.
Actually, there is a huge difference. The decision on awarding a contract following rebid of .org was completely in the scope of ICANN. Of course, many might not be happy with that decision (and I sense that Adam is one of them). Others are not happy with the result of the rebid of .com, including several ICANN Board members. And I bet many are not happy with some ccTLD delegation or redelegation. But in all those cases ICANN made a choice that it was clearly mandated to do: you might disagree with the choice, but not on the fact that it was in ICANN's scope to take it. OTOH, the allocation of valuable SLDs, like single character domains, is a brand new task. As such, we need to consider it with much more care. The question might not only be whether the method used, or the choice of the beneficiary, pleases the internet community, but even if this does not configures itself like a whole new domain, the implications of which are much wider than the redelegationb of a TLD. Cheers, Roberto
At 2:34 PM +0100 1/22/08, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Continuing the discussion started by Adam and Vittorio:
if there's enough coming from it, but no one tasked ICANN with being the Treasure Ministry of the Internet, let alone deciding how to redistribute money from the "undeserving" to the "deserving".
Too late. Already done with .ORG. Decision made purely on the grounds of who was most deserving, technical criteria met by many applicants. ISOC revenues now some millions of dollars each year.
Actually, there is a huge difference. The decision on awarding a contract following rebid of .org was completely in the scope of ICANN. Of course, many might not be happy with that decision (and I sense that Adam is one of them).
No, I was pretty happy at the time (minor reservations, who hadn't?, don't need going over), I supported the NCUC's evaluation of the various bids, and was a member of PIR's first advisory council. So while I'm still a bit uncomfortable with the approach, I couldn't think of anything better for the rebid at the time (still can't) and think it's worked out well. The transition went smoothly and ORG runs well. I would like to see more transparency from ISOC regarding how it spends the money. ISOC publishes it budget on the web and also draft plans are made available for comment, etc, and this is commendable, but I think more detail is possible and appropriate. The "good works part" was a major element of the bid and consequently I think ICANN should monitor for compliance just as it does technical criteria. Yes, it would make ICANN a bit of a regulator, but that goes with the responsibility of awarding a contract worth tens of millions of dollars. The single letter names may bring hundreds of millions. I am writing about US telecoms and an interesting issue at the moment is tension between the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (responsible for telecoms) and the FCC. Congressman John Dingell, Chair of the Committee writes the FCC Chair, Kevin Martin: "I have the good fortune of having conducted oversight of Federal agencies for some time. This experience informs my opinion that an independent agency that conducts its affairs fairly, openly, and transparently is more likely to serve the public interest than one that does not. When the process breaks down, as it appears to have at the FCC, reasoned analysis and debate suffer, and public confidence in the agency is shaken." I am not trying to suggest ICANN is a govt agency, or that confidence in it is shaky. On the contrary, given ICANN's recent letter to the US government about ending the joint project agreement and gaining independence (brilliant and brave decisions by the board -- has my complete support, surprised no discussion on the ALAC list), then conducting its affairs "fairly, openly, and transparently" will be even more important, and particularly so when very large sums of money are involved and ICANN is passing that money on to others. But that's not really relevant at the moment! Adam
Others are not happy with the result of the rebid of .com, including several ICANN Board members. And I bet many are not happy with some ccTLD delegation or redelegation. But in all those cases ICANN made a choice that it was clearly mandated to do: you might disagree with the choice, but not on the fact that it was in ICANN's scope to take it.
OTOH, the allocation of valuable SLDs, like single character domains, is a brand new task. As such, we need to consider it with much more care. The question might not only be whether the method used, or the choice of the beneficiary, pleases the internet community, but even if this does not configures itself like a whole new domain, the implications of which are much wider than the redelegationb of a TLD.
Cheers, Roberto
Adam Peake wrote:
I would like to see more transparency from ISOC regarding how it spends the money. ISOC publishes it budget on the web and also draft plans are made available for comment, etc, and this is commendable, but I think more detail is possible and appropriate. The "good works part" was a major element of the bid and consequently I think ICANN should monitor for compliance just as it does technical criteria. Yes, it would make ICANN a bit of a regulator, but that goes with the responsibility of awarding a contract worth tens of millions of dollars. If the contract specified deliverables and metrics related to transparency and "good works", measurement of compliance should be reasonable. If such deliverables and metrics do not exist, then it's nothing more than feel-good mush language whose level of compliance is in the eye of the beholder -- meaning unenforceable.
The extent to which ICANN must monitor begins and ends with _enforcable_ components of the contracts it makes. Monitoring behaviour outside the (enforceable components of) contracts is as much the role of third-party watchdog groups as ICANN, since the only recourse to extra-contract bad behaviour is embarrassment from bad publicity.
I am not trying to suggest ICANN is a govt agency, or that confidence in it is shaky. That's OK. Others are quite capable of asserting that. ;-)
On the contrary, given ICANN's recent letter to the US government about ending the joint project agreement and gaining independence (brilliant and brave decisions by the board -- has my complete support, surprised no discussion on the ALAC list),
What's so brave? Where is the risk? ICANN has lots of sustaining revenue, and a governing process that denies direct end-user input into decision making. Of course it makes (internal) sense for ICANN to divest itself from binding oversight by any outside body that might assert a public interest seen to be otherwise lacking. - Evan
On the contrary, given ICANN's recent letter to the US government about ending the joint project agreement and gaining independence (brilliant and brave decisions by the board
Since the US DOC has made it quite clear in their diplomatic way that they will never ever give up control of the DNS root, those aren't the adjectives I would have used. R's, John
participants (7)
-
Adam Peake -
Evan Leibovitch -
Franck Martin -
John L -
Roberto Gaetano -
Sébastien Bachollet -
Vittorio Bertola