ICANN | Messages from David Hernand to M. Stuart Lynn

From: "David Hernand" <david@new.net>
To: <lynn@icann.org>
Cc: <steve@new.net>
Subject: New.net Policy Paper
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 07:59:22 -0700

Stuart:

We at New.net read with great interest your recent "Discussion Draft: A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS" posted to ICANN's website. As you may know, we released yesterday our own paper discussing the need for greater competition in the domain name space and the role that ICANN should take in that process. Attached is a copy of our paper. Given your stated intent in releasing your draft of prompting discussion of these issues — a move that we fully support — it would be appropriate and helpful to persons considering these issues if you would also post a link to New.net's policy paper to the ICANN website.

From: "David Hernand" <david@new.net>
To: "'M. Stuart Lynn'" <lynn@icann.org>, "'Bret Fausett'" <baf@fausett.com>, "'Milton Mueller'" <Mueller@syr.edu>, <webmaster@babybows.com>, <ga-roots@dnso.org>
Subject: RE: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 23:32:51 -0700

Mr. Lynn:

With all due respect, your unilateral efforts to divine official ICANN policy from charter documents and RFCs is no different than efforts of religious zealots to declare their one true interpretation of biblical texts. We will offer our own views on the substance of your recent "draft" policy statement (and already have offered an alternative view in our policy paper released prior to the Stockholm meeting -- available at www.new.net), but we strongly disagree with your approach to setting ICANN policy without input from the Internet community and debate by ICANN constituencies, GA, Names Council and Board of Directors. In essence, it appears that the ICANN Staff is trying to ram through its own view of the role of alternative roots and naming systems, while simultaneously attempting to stifle debate on these issues by proclaiming that any challenge to the Staff's self-proclaimed policy must follow the same bottoms-up consensus approach that the Staff is unwilling to utilize.

It is curious that the policy statement at issue was originally posted to the ICANN website as a "draft" paper intended to spur discussion, and then quickly evolved (over the course of one week) into a formal articulation of existing ICANN policy. We question the motives and timing of this effort by the ICANN Staff to create a trumped-up official policy that the Staff can then use to publicly discredit and discourage use of competing naming systems. While we support ICANN's efforts to act as a global technical-standards settings body, we think that the Staff's recent efforts will only further alienate ICANN from those working to improve the current system and Internet users generally.

David Hernand
CEO
New.net