I doubt that anybody on the internet, except those who hold stock in Verisign, thinks it a good thing that ICANN has given to Verisign the gift of "presumptive renewal" - in effect a guarantee of perpetual ownership - of .com.
(By-the-way, I voted against "presumptive renewal" when it came before ICANN the first time.)
The broad and overwhelming consensus of internet users is that presumptive renewal is a stupid idea.
So what does ICANN do with stupid ideas? Hint - fixing 'em does not seem to be on ICANN's list of possible answers.
ICANN's answer: Repetition of a mistake makes it not a mistake. ICANN is proposing to repeat its presumptive renewal mistake in the Verisign contract by amending every contract, with every existing TLD operator, so that every contract contains its own presumptive renewall provision!
ICANN will, of course, answer that they are merely encouraging TLD operators to invest in themselves.
Do we really believe that these operators need "presumptive renewal" to give them the incentive to maintain the quality of their TLD businesses so that they can continue to attract and retain customers? I'n certainly not about to drink any of that kind of Cool-Aid.
This presumptive renewall issue is the result of very fuzzy thinking on the part of ICANN.
Let's step back a moment and recognize that there are two distinct and severable aspects of gTLDs like .biz, .com, and .info:
First there is the right to have a name put into the root zone (with NS records of the operator's choice).
Second is the character string of the name itself. This includes all of the "good will" that that string has accumulated.
I have long advocated that all that ICANN should be granting is "slots" - the right to put a name (and NS records) into the root zone. The choice of the character string to bind to that slot should then be up to the operator.
ICANN has an obligation to ensure that the grantee of a "slot" uses that slot in ways that do not violate published and accepted internet standards. ICANN could sanction, for example, an operator of a TLD who uses servers that do not follow the DNS RFC's or mis-construes the IP protocol
But ICANN ought to have no role with regard to the character string that the TLD operator uses, except to ensure that the name is not in conflict with the name used by another TLD operator.
Because ICANN mixes these two concepts, it is unclear whether the operator of the gTLD or ICANN owns the name. For example who owns the string ".info", and the business "good will" that it has garnered?
Let's get back to presumptive renewal - By granting presumptive renewal rights ICANN eliminates the lever it has to coerce a TLD operator should that operator's behavior drift outside the bounds established by published and widely accepted internet standards.
In other words, presumptive renewal is a form of institutional self-emasculation. The presumptive renewal clause in the existing ICANN-Verisign contract has almost completely immunized Verisign against anything that ICANN might say or do.
If we go back to the distinction between slots and names we can see a reasonable intermediate pathway:
ICANN can let a gTLD operator retain the rights to use and good will that have been accumulated by the name. But ICANN would retain the rights to revoke the right to use the slot should a gTLD operator fail to behave according to the published and widely accepted internet standards.
Thus, if an operator failed to meet standards it might find itself with a name but without any entry in the root zone file - sort of like an airline that has failed to follow proper safety practices and as a consequence has lost the certificate that permits its aircraft to fly.
In such a case the operator would have to cure its ills and either petition ICANN for a new slot or sell its rights in the name.
There's been a lot of noise recently about NTIA and ICANN. In particularly there has been a lot of noise that NTIA might somehow cast ICANN free but that NTIA, and thus the US, would retain ultimate control of the DNS root zone.
What, exactly might that mean?
ICANN was, like all other private corporations, born only with what its incorporators (Jones Day) put into it, which in ICANN's case wasn't much worth mentioning.
So, where did ICANN get its authority over "the IANA function" and the various top level domains and the IP address space?
And from where did ICANN get the L-root server and what was the legal vehicle used to perform the transfer?
ICANN has various relationships with the US government. One of these is via ICANN's "MoU" with NTIA. Another is that ICANN is the contractor that is tasked to perform, at no cost, on a government procurement for "the IANA function".
Recently NTIA has asked about the possibility of moving that IANA function to another contractor. I asked NTIA via e-mail whether that included the L-root server. They replied, via e-mail, that it does not.
So let's take it that the procurement for the IANA function does not involve the L-root server.
That must mean that ICANN derives the L-root server via the MoU. Trouble is, the MoU says nothing about the L-root server.
NTIA, Jones Day, and ICANN have over the years created a legal mess - a sloppy, tangled spaghetti of vague legal verbage scattered over several written agreements and who knows how many oral ones. And all of this is covered with a rich sauce made from a complete disregard of the question whether or not NTIA has the legal authority to even be in the ICANN-making kitchen at all.
Somewhere in that mess is the L-root server. Or perhaps it isn't in that mess - perhaps it was one of those things that slipped by, or maybe it went as an oversight, or perhaps it was an overt usurpation.
And is it not a clear and direct conflict-of-interest should ICANN be in the business of overseeing the behavior or root server operators when it is one of them itself?
Whatever the reason, it leaves the L-root server an orphan in this dance of mutual attraction and revulsion that ICANN and NTIA have been doing for so many years.
So, if NTIA "releases" ICANN then what happens to the L-root server? Does it remain with ICANN. If so, on what legal grounds is that permissible? If not, than how is NTIA going to manage this bit of returned GFE (Government Furnished Equipment)?
And, if NTIA removes its hand from ICANN's shoulder, one wonders how long it will be before we see people in various countries begin to ask, perhaps in the form of legal actions, whether ICANN, now that it no longer acts with the color of the US government, is a combination in restraint of trade in violation of their country's laws?
I just did a quick read-through of the ruling in the EFF vs AT&T case.
My first thought was that there is probably an order going out to all agencies in the executive branch to clam up, to neither confirm or deny anything. In practice this will probably be done with vigor in accord to the long established principle of CYA. So, if we start seeing people in Federal agencies who won't even confirm or deny their own existence or the that the sun came up in the morning, we'll know why.
My second thought is that the Court did not address the most basic question - whether there really is a "state secret" privilege that can be exercised by the Executive and what it's scope might be. I felt that the Court didn't really want to engage on that question. I personally have trouble locating the precise Constitutional sources of "state secrets" and wonder whether it would better to have Congress enact appropriate legislation on the matter. Indeed I wonder whether Congress may have already defined the limits of "state secrets" when it passed laws regarding the classification of materials.
This ruling certainly doesn't guarantee success to EFF - far from it - but it is very refreshing to see a judge who has the guts to consider the issue rather than meekly acceding to naked claims from the Executive.
It's once again time for the Shakespeare Santa Cruz summer season.
And as we have been doing for the better part of a decade, we will be gathering folks together at my place for a pre-show gathering (good food and wine).
Last year's shows were fantastic - I was particularly pleased that my wife and I were able to be a sponsor for a particularly well done Twelfth Night.
This year the main line-up is King Lear, As You Like It, and Shaw's Pygmalian. There will also be a "fringe" show - usually done by actors of the smaller parts in the main plays, and members of the crew - which has always been a lot of fun and often more than a bit bawdy. And a bit later on there will be the staged reading Dear Liar. I've seen it and it's good, really good.
If you are afraid of Shakespeare - don't be. Good acting and staging cuts through the language barriers.
The two Shakespeare plays will be in the outdoor redwood glen - simply the best outdoor theatre venue anywhere. I prefer to be a goundling for these - a couple of blankets (it gets kinda cool when the fog rolls in), some cheese, and some wine - but my wife prefers the seats.
This is some of the best live theatre in the country. If you want to join our getherings, drop me a note.
As they say:
Theatre is Art.
Film is Life.
Television is Furniture.
Where does that leave the internet?
It makes me miss my life as a backstage techie, mainly with lighting - the feeling of having 250,000 watts of lights at ones fingertips and the tension as the stage manager's countdown runs - "house to half" .. "house out" .. "lights .. cue one .. go!"
I'm reading the report on the Farber-Cerf discussion on "net neutrality".
I am struck by the innocence and irony of the discussion - particularly Cerf's comments.
It seems that Vint has forgotten that he is chairman of the board of an oppressive and heavy handed internet regulatory body that is most decidedly not-neutral.
ICANN has established a regime in which just about everyone who wants to do anything in the domain name marketplace, whether as seller or buyer, has to do so according to ICANN's rules. Those rules have crushed the life out of new domain name ideas and new domain name business methods.
I, for one, strongly believe that that net neutrality laws are necessary to protect end users from the predatory practices of edge providers who seek to leverage infrastructures that were enabled, and largely paid for, by monopoly positions. So I agree with Vint's positions.
However, I believe that Vint's statements would carry more weight if ICANN, the organization that he chairs, were not itself a very real example of the anti-innovative kind of non-neutrality that we both so fear.
I've written up and submitted my comments to NTIA for their review of ICANN.
You can see what I sent on my website at http://www.cavebear.com/public/ntia-july-7-2006-statement.html
(It's about 17 pages long.)
Update: A copy is now up on the NTIA website at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dnstransition/comments/dnstrans_comment0563.htm