1. Staff Infection. It takes the musings of ICANN staff as received gospel to a new level. It was bad enough when ICANN CTO McLaughlin was quoted in the NY Times (requires free signup): We're trying to set up a system that's not favorable to speculators.... Nowhere in the bylaws, bottom up process(es), Board motions, or any other public mechanism, is there any direction for staff to take such a position. That at least had plausible deniability as a misquote. Lynn's draft popping up on ICANN's site, just before a Board meeting so there isn't sufficient time (or a definitive place) to respond, with no explanation of how/why it came to be there, should make it transparently obvious to even the wilfully clueless that it is the staff driving the ICANN bus, with the Board and SO's onboard only as titular figureheads. The rest of us are free to go play in the traffic.|
2. Staff pulling rank on SO's. Milton Meuller says: Clearly, the DNSO cannot take the first tiny steps toward policy discussion without ICANN management deciding that it already knows that the right policy is and ramming it down everyone's throats.... Lynn claims that to change this policy would require a community consensus for the change. Does this mean it is now policy that the staff initiates and sets policy and it remains in place unless and until a bottom up process displaces it? Seems to me Job 1 is to start a bottom up process to specify if and when ICANN staff can set policy.
3. Demonstrably false claims.
The draft states that Atlantic Root's .biz (not explicitly named, perhaps for legal reasons) was activated...after several detailed proposals were submitted for community consideration that is: .biz TLD applications to ICANN. ARNI's .biz not only existed prior to ICANN's receipt of TLD applications, from memory it existed prior to ICANN's request for such.
4. More demonstrably false claims. Lynn states ([f]or some concrete examples of potential failures and instabilities that would likely result from alternative roots prevalently used on the public Internet, see the Internet Draft "Alt-Roots, Alt-TLDs" (K. Crispin May 2001). In fact the (flawed IMO) draft gives hypothetical, not concrete, examples. Lynn apparently missed Crispin's warning that I frequently postulate things that I believe will simply never happen. Despite 'alt' roots existing for years, I've never seen an example of them causing any DNS destabilization, presumably if Crispin knew of any he would have used them. BTW, if I were to write an internet draft giving concrete examples of how not to use a lawnmower, where is the open, transparent process for how one submits this for approval for hosting on ICANN's site?
5. Reshaping reality through repetition. The word community appears in this draft an impressive 46 times. Note to author: in future please define at least your most often used terms.
6. Trust? Lynn would have us believe there is an unbroken line from the original DNS RFC's through to the present, with ICANN bravely upholding the public trust against the forces of anarchy, self-interest, and destabilization. Two recent comments in the Industry Standard from Paul Mockapetris, author of RFC 1034, on which Lynn bases ICANN's legitimacy, are instructive: 1. I always said that technology folks have to figure out how to keep two steps ahead of the bureaucrats and the lawyers. And the technology people, particularly the people at ICANN, have not done that. Now all of a sudden progress is stopped. It's gotta hurt when one of the fathers of the internet disowns a pretender claiming to be his offspring. And 2., in response to the question: What do you wish you had invented? Paul replies: A directory system for the Internet that wouldn’t be controlled by the politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats. Amen. -g