[ga] Re: [At-Large] My comments on new gTLDs and the role of ICANN

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris, Vittorio, et., al,

  I fully agree, and as many know, I along with many others have
been stating this same refrain for years now.  Yet ICANN doesn't
seem to be listening or is so entrenched in it's bad decision making
process and management style that they refuse to recognize the
business realities all over the world.  Such ignorance is beyond
simple bafflement IMO, it's inane.

  Indeed ICANN desiring to dictate a business direction for the
management of any TLD is I believe, a demonstration of violation
of restraint of trade, which was first brought to everyone's notice
by past Bod member Karl Auerbach.

  As such, and amongst other ICANN policies, ICANN has
not yet to even begin to meet it requirements in respec to the
MOU.

NameCritic wrote:

> Vittorio, can I reprint your comments on my blog at
> http://www.namecritic.info? You hit the point exactly right. The costs are
> prohibitive to a small business as well. ICANN is going against it's own
> charter by removing competition from the process. This high priced proposal
> from ICANN is anti-competitive and inhibits free enterprise and may even be
> illegal.
>
> A one-size-fits-all approach will never work. ICANN has no right to decide
> whether or not my or anyone else's business plan is viable. My finances are
> none of ICANN's business. ICANN is a technical entity and should only be
> concerned whether or not I can "technically" operate a tld. My failure or
> success at making a business out of of it is not something ICANN is set up
> to address.
>
> If ICANN is going to analyze business plans and financial stability of each
> applicant and then approve these applicants and they fail, then ICANN will
> be liable for that failure and subject to being sued. If ICANN takes the
> position of assuring people who buy domains in a given TLD through their
> approval of that business plan and the financial stability of that company,
> then they are truly liable for any failures right alongside that company.
>
> We have courts and laws to deal with what happens if a company fails and
> someone or somone's business is harmed. ICANN should not be concerned or
> involved with that aspect at all. Those who sit on the board of ICANN need
> to get back to ensuring the technical stability of the Internet and stop
> trying to make "laws" as if they were a government.
>
> Chris McElroy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 4:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [At-Large] My comments on new gTLDs and the role of ICANN
>
> > Vittorio
> > This is so well said. Thank you!!!
> > Jacqueline
> >
> > Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> >> Since yesterday I could not make my comments at the Public Forum, I sent
> >> them by email to the Board, and I am publishing them here.
> >> -----
> >>
> >> Dear Board of ICANN,
> >>
> >> as I was standing in line yesterday morning in the Public Forum, but due
> >> to prior commitments was not able to attend the "ad hoc" afternoon
> >> session
> >> to express my views, I am sending them directly to the Board, copying the
> >> Chairman, Vice-Chairman and ALAC Liaison so that at least one of them can
> >> forward my message to the Board list, and I will publish them somewhere
> >> for yesterday's audience.
> >>
> >> Before I get to my point of substance... I guess that several people
> >> already expressed their discomfort for what happened yesterday. However,
> >> please let me reiterate that the Public Forum, where the community and
> >> the
> >> Board discuss in plenary mode about the main topics of the moment, is one
> >> of the most fundamental elements of ICANN's legitimacy and
> >> accountability.
> >> Everyone knew since the beginning that at this meeting the Public Forum
> >> would have been crowded and well attended, and the decision to allot just
> >> one hour for it, then letting VIP speeches eat even more into it, is a
> >> terrible mistake. I urge the Board to make sure that there is ample time
> >> for Public Forums at every ICANN meeting - given that this situation
> >> happens often, I see a need for clear directions to staff by the Board.
> >>
> >> Now - I would like to comment as a wannabe applicant for a gTLD
> >> application which may or may not materialize, but that constitutes a good
> >> proof for the remaining flaws in an otherwise well thought-out draft RFP.
> >> Its main purpose is to save an ancient language and culture which have
> >> been existing in my part of Italy for about a thousand years, but which
> >> will disappear forever in twenty years or so, together with the elderly
> >> people that still embrace them, unless we can succeed in transitioning
> >> them to the Internet age.
> >>
> >> A small group of volunteers has been working pro bono for years to create
> >> online resources in this language - including, for example, a Wikipedia
> >> edition. The existence of a gTLD specifically devoted to that culture and
> >> language would make in our opinion a huge difference. It would boost the
> >> sense of identity and community, and provide a visible home to gather all
> >> efforts. However, this will clearly not be a business opportunity - it is
> >> imaginable that initially the gTLD would have just a few dozen
> >> registrations, which we would gladly give away for free through a
> >> non-profit vehicle.
> >>
> >> I think that what we would like to do is a deserving purpose, at least as
> >> good as yet another dot com clone, and possibly better than the abundant
> >> defensive registrations of any kind that we will see. To run a TLD with
> >> such a few registrations, there is no need for big staff and huge server
> >> farms - in fact, we are confident that we could get all the time, skills
> >> and technical resources as volunteer work and in-kind donations. However,
> >> even if we succeeded in this, we would still be facing an impossible task
> >> to raise $185'000 now and $75'000 each year just to pay ICANN fees, and
> >> we
> >> would likely score very badly against operational and financial criteria
> >> designed for multimillionaire global ventures.
> >>
> >> Yet, if you think that what we are trying to do is obsolete, amateurish
> >> or
> >> unimportant, please think again. This is the way all ccTLDs and gTLDs
> >> started prior to the ICANN era, and most of them have become pretty
> >> successful by now; actually, the only ones going for bankruptcy lie among
> >> those picked by ICANN through its carefully drafted RFP processes. This
> >> is
> >> actually the way almost every innovation happens over the Internet, still
> >> today.
> >>
> >> The Web? It wasn't invented by CERN, it was invented at CERN, by a couple
> >> of individuals, in their spare time, as a byproduct of their real job.
> >> Instant messaging? Peer to peer? Even innovations that overturned
> >> billionaire industries were invented by one or a few individuals with no
> >> money at all, or at most by small garage startups. What would happen to
> >> innovation if the IETF required $185'000 to submit a new Internet draft?
> >>
> >> I understand that there are costs attached to the establishment of a new
> >> TLD, though $185'000 per application, even in an expensive country like
> >> Italy, is enough to hire five or six people for one year for each
> >> application, and one wonders why do you need all that work; and $75'000
> >> per year to keep a TLD in the root, where the work required in the
> >> absence
> >> of special events is literally zero, is plainly ridiculous. However, if
> >> you want to extract money from rich applicants going for remunerative
> >> global TLDs, or from big corporations with deep pockets trying to protect
> >> their brand, that's fine; but please don't make other uses impossible.
> >>
> >> There are several pricing structures that could address this issue:
> >> special prices for non-profit applicants, lower fees for TLDs that don't
> >> reach a minimum number of registrations, or panels in cooperation with
> >> appropriate organizations (say, UNESCO) to "bless" applications that have
> >> specific cultural or technological value. Several people have promised to
> >> submit practicable proposals in the next few weeks. But it is paramount
> >> that ICANN doesn't sell out the domain name space without putting in
> >> place
> >> features to address this issue.
> >>
> >> In the end, while applicants will be judged by the RFP, ICANN will be
> >> judged by the overall set of TLDs that it will add into the root. It may
> >> get 500 or more of them, but if 90% of them will be private corporate
> >> registrations, and the rest will be dot com clones with some kind of
> >> vague
> >> specialization, ICANN will have failed.
> >>
> >> But, looking also at other aspects, I am also afraid that the failure
> >> might end up being much deeper. ICANN is becoming a well managed business
> >> entity, through increased staffing and the introduction of corporate best
> >> practices. However, ICANN is not just a business entity - it is a strange
> >> beast with much more than that into it. What is optimal for a business
> >> corporation might actually make parts of the community feel not at home
> >> any more; and might make ICANN lose touch with its roots, with the nature
> >> and spirit of the Internet. If this happens, ICANN is doomed - all the
> >> governmental deals and business partnerships won't be enough to preserve
> >> its prestige and credibility.
> >>
> >> I see as one of the primary strategic roles of the Board that of ensuring
> >> that the decentralized, flat and free nature of the Internet is
> >> preserved,
> >> or at least not attacked, by the policies that ICANN adopts, and even
> >> that
> >> these policies contribute to, or at least do not stifle, the fulfillment
> >> of Millennium Development Goals and other worthy objectives in terms of
> >> development and human rights. These are not just high sounding words,
> >> they
> >> carry a meaning that must trickle down into everything ICANN does when it
> >> comes to policies. When you are tasked with a fundamental role in
> >> coordinating the Internet, there's more to life than business as usual.
> >> Please do not forget this.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > At-Large mailing list
> > At-Large@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >
> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827