[dns-wg] loadsaTLDs and the ICANN policy-making process

On 16 Oct 2009, at 16:35, David Conrad wrote:

> Can you provide a reason (other than "because I don't like it") that  
> ICANN shouldn't abide by the decision of the open, bottom-up policy  
> development process of the GNSO?

You answer that question yourself David. See 1) below.

> Two points:
>
> 1) many folks in the technical community refuse to get involved in  
> ICANN policy deliberations because they believe it's that icky non- 
> technical political stuff.  Unfortunately, this can lead to a lack  
> of technical input into those deliberations, resulting in decisions  
> that can be skewed towards business or political considerations.  If  
> the technical community believes a certain outcome would be sub- 
> optimal, I would strongly encourage members of that community to get  
> more involved in policy discussions.

What's the point in engaging in a policy discussion about new gTLDs  
now? That debate appears to be over. You seem to be implying that the  
decision about that has already been taken -- ie ICANN abiding by the  
decision the gNSO has reached. Or are you saying that if the technical  
community says to ICANN (how?) "we think it's a Bad Idea to have lots  
of new TLDs", ICANN will be receptive to those representations?

I think it's not unreasonable to say that although the ICANN processes  
try to be open, they made/make it difficult for the technical  
community to participate in a meaningful way. BTW this was one of the  
reasons why RIPE's "sign the root" declaration in 2007 was sent as a  
letter to the ICANN CEO and Chairman. There was no obvious ICANN forum  
which could receive it or act on it. I've been to more ICANN meetings  
than I'd care to admit to and, apart from Suzanne's board postition,  
have trouble remembering any DNS operators or implementers who  
attended them. [Mind you, the copious amounts of beer needed to get  
through those weeks may have been a contributing factor.] The few  
technical people who do engage with ICANN on a regular basis usually  
have their hands tied in one way or another: say membership of an  
ICANN committee/task force or their employer has a vested interest in  
seeing new TLDs.

Speaking personally, I knew there was no point in advancing a case for  
fewer new TLDs (not zero) at the gNSO because (a) I'd get shouted  
down; (b) the other side of the debate could string things out with a  
battle of attrition until I gave up or ran out of funding; (c) the day  
job wouldn't allow me to spend time on unproductive and resource- 
draining ICANN participation. If it was a choice between paying the  
mortgage and walking around ICANN meetings wearing a sign saying "kick  
me!", what would you do?