On Mon, Feb 08, 1999 at 07:34:40AM -0600, John B. Reynolds wrote:
> Jay Fenello wrote:
> >
> > How do you envision ICANN enforcing
> > policies onto the registries?
>
> If all else fails, ICANN has the authority to remove them from its root
> zone. It's admittedly the 'nuclear option', but it's there.
An unpleasant prospect, to be sure.
It's important to keep in mind that enforcement per se is ICANN's
direct concern, not the DNSO's.
It is also important to keep in mind that the registries are quite
diverse, and not to fall into the trap of lumping all registries into
one mold. I have been seriously guilty of this offense myself in the
very recent past, and I would like to appologize for such sloppy
thinking. [*]
This diversity in the registries means that there won't be a single
uniform enforcement policy, nor will there be a single enforcement
mechanism. This is messy, but, in my opinion, completely
unavoidable. In the long run the most common mechanism will be
contracts of some sort or another, but there will be different
contracts with different registries. And community, political and
legal pressures from external sources will sometimes be the only
effective enforcement mechanism.
It's also important to keep in mind that time is an important factor
here. ICANN's enforcement powers don't go from zero to 100% at some
magic hour. They will grow slowly over an extended period of time,
and will cover a broader and broader base of registries. This
transition will measure in years.
Looking at all the different cases of TLDs makes it quite clear, I
think, that there will be no uniform enforcement mechanism for a
long time:
1) .com, .net, .org: At the end of the two years NSI will enter into a
contract with ICANN, mediated by the USG. Some enforcement power
will come from that contract, and perhaps through indirect legal
means. (Anti-trust theats from DoJ, for example).
2) .gov, .mil: special contract with the USG
3) .edu: a contract with a new registry operator for .edu
4) .int: perhaps administered through contract to the UN, or some
related organization
5) .arpa: managed internally in conjunction with the PSO? There
have been proposals for several other protocol-oriented TLDs in the
past, as well
6) .us: contract with a registry designated by the USG
7) New gTLD registries: They won't become registries without signing
a contract with ICANN. Enforcement powers over new gTLD registries
will come from those contracts.
8) ccTLDs: A very complex sub-class. We can distinguish several cases
- Large national tlds already well integrated with their associated
sovereign -- probably they will sign a contract with ICANN because
their government will support ICANN. The EU, for example, will
probably support ICANN, and I expect the CENTR registries will fairly
quickly reach a negotiated contract with ICANN.
- at the other end, very tiny TLDs with an uncertain
relationship with their associated sovereign -- these are the
most vulnerable to the "nuclear option", which ICANN may exercise
at any time if the sovereign makes a serious assertion of power.
These TLDs may well want to sign a contract with ICANN to give
themselves bargaining power with respect to their own sovereign
- a whole bunch of intermediate cases: These will all need to be
addressed on a case-by-case basis, and, while ICANN may not like
it, I would not be at all surprised if there ere many different
contracts.
In all this it is important to remember that it is ICANN that will be
negotiating these contracts, not the DNSO.
[*] I have labled the Paris draft as the "registries draft", because
of the "pre-review" clause that gives registries a veto over any
policy that affects them. However, that "pre-review" concept came
straight from Don Telage and David Johnsons DNSO comments, and those
individuals were two of the 10 participants in the Paris meeting.
The pre-review was not in the earlier CENTR draft, for example.
--
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
