A message from Mikey O'Connor. It was sent to the threat that was preparing for the PDP Chairs discussion on Wednesday, but it goes WAY over an above the original subject and into all sorts of compelling issues, many of which can readily fit into "accountability and transparency". Alan
From: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> Subject: and now, for something completely different -- SSR Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 22:06:15 -0500 CC: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "Larisa B. Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick@icann.org>, Charla Shambley <charla.shambley@icann.org>, Brian Cute <bcute@pir.org> To: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@verisign.com>, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org>, "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" <michele@blacknight.com>, "rickert@anwaelte.de Rickert" <rickert@anwaelte.de>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, Paul Diaz <pdiaz@pir.org>, "jeff.neuman@neustar.biz jeff.neuman@neustar.biz" <jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
hi all,
one last picture from Mikey before our call on Wednesday.
Olivier will know this picture -- it's one we developed in the DSSA together. so there's perhaps less need for us to discuss this one on our call (where *is* that agenda Alan?).
i bring this forward because i think ICANN is getting really close to splitting the root with all this late maneuvering around the SSR issues (dotless domains, name collision, internal certs, etc.). i'm levering these questions to the ATRT into this conversation because i was the GNSO co-chair of the recently-dead DSSA working group. here goes...
-- where is the connection between the SSAC and action? why are reports that point to serious SSR issues not finding their way into policy discussions in a timely way? as a test case please consider tracing the path that SAC045 took, and determine why we didn't have Lyman Chapin's report on namespace collision commissioned and completed 3 years ago. why didn't the GNSO pick up on this and launch a discussion/investigation/PDP?
-- does ICANN (the corporation) have a conflict of interest, now that so much of its budget is dependent on the revenue anticipated from new gTLDs? is it losing its place as trusted steward for the root because of that?
-- has ICANN gotten so big and so layered with complexity and privilege that it has forgotten how easy it is to stand up a separate root? to a person, my corporate and ISP uber-network-geek pals are saying that the easiest way to take care of all the problems caused by new gTLDs may be to simply edit those domains out of a privately operated root zone. it used to be hard to stand up a robust root -- now it's easy, cheap and may well be a lot less work that chasing down all the troubles that could be caused by new gTLDs.
-- in olden times, alternate root providers were viewed with nothing but distain. but suppose that the largest corporate and connectivity-provider DNS operators decided to collaborate on a "clean" DNS root zone that simply pointed to the the legacy registries and treated the ICANN new-gTLDs the way that all alternate TLD/zone providers have been treated?
-- here's another investigation the ATRT may want to pursue. why does the staff suggest a tiered risk-management approach to name-collision, and try to make it sound like InterIsles' report is the source of that approach, when that's not the case? InterIsle describes 5 approaches to managing the risk in their report, none of which include the option that the staff constructed. yet through tricky wording, the two 5-August staff reports attempt to make it sound as though they're carrying out the recommendations made in the report when in fact they're cherry-picking their way to the speediest rollout schedule.
-- by the way, what happened to the bottom-up multi-stakeholder process in any of these late-breaking SSR issues? sure, we're out for comments right now. but then what? this is TMCH on steroids and this time we may see ICANN lose its credibility with the technical community that underpins this hallucination we all agree to share. what if the trust relationship is broken and we geeks just stick our hands in our pockets and walk on down the road?
-- why did ICANN take so long to react to the constant barrage of communication (from Verisign and others) about risks related to new gTLDs, and why is that reaction still so muted? what on earth is going on with the communications between Verisign and the NTIA?
-- in short -- what is becoming of the "grand bargain" that was struck back in the late '90's? are "gaps in policy, management, or leadership threatening to split the root"? the DSSA drew this picture a couple years ago -- now our predictions (and those of the Internet Society on which they're based) seem to be coming true.
there. that ought to provide some entertainment for the last couple days before our call. :-)
discuss away,
mikey
[]
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: <http://www.haven2.com>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
