[dns-operations] When TLDs have apex A records

Eric Brunner-Williams brunner at nic-naa.net
Tue Jul 7 00:22:02 UTC 2009

David Conrad wrote:
> kc,
> On Jul 6, 2009, at 12:42 PM, k claffy wrote: 
>> but as you pointed out, that's not what this
>> thread was about, and that conversation really belongs elsewhere (not
>> sure where, maybe the list needs a suggestion)
> Good question.  Perhaps the GA list?  (:-)).  More seriously, I agree 
> that this isn't the right place for discussions about ICANN policies 
> as they affect the technical community.  I'm also not sure where the 
> right place would be.  Maybe the right answer is for a technical 
> constituency to be established within ICANN?

The word "constituency" is a term of art, referring to an entity within 
the GNSO, pre-reform, or reforming. I think what you may have ment is a 
supporting organization, as the issue(s) just in this thread are not 
unique to the "generic" Name Supporting Organization, though the 
mechanism to implement any particular policy outcome, e.g., no wildcard 
in the apex, are distinct to each of the GNSO and CCNSO ensembles of 
registries and their operators and hence their zone file apex content.

If you really ment "constituency" within the GNSO, then in the reform 
(in progress, or perhaps not so much so) model, as the GNSO-C isn't 
supposed to be a quasi-legislative policy making body, then a working 
group (or a work party, I'm confused, and I follow this stuff) may be 
the right initial fit, modulo the COM/NET/ORG/... limit on the scope of 
anything in the G-side.

There is an exception to this, still small and only as old as the .C and 
IDN Fast Track (or not) collision of G and CC operator interests.

Unfortunately, in 2002 the "Protocol Supporting Organization" contained 
in the original ICANN by laws was removed, and removing the 
corresponding voting seats on the ICANN Board allocated to the PSO.

At present we've "advice" from the GAC and other advisory bodies, 
non-voting liaisons, and some voting NomCom appointees, who may have 
sufficient breadth and depth to originate persuasion sufficient to allow 
the Board to form a well-informed decision, regardless of outcome. A 
list could be useful.

Note Bene: Clue is not in itself sufficient. Patience, time-on-target, a 
modest interest in the motivations of the primary actors, in one or more 
of the GNSO, in the CCNSO, in the GAC, in the ALAC, and a modest degree 
of skepticism about the unrestrained assertions of clue coupled with 
ignorance or disinterest in, or outright capture by, one of the primary 
actors is more useful than its absence.


More information about the dns-operations mailing list