[ga] Re: On new TLDs
Sotiris has touched upon a point that I wanted to raise with you -- he notes that "Vint's questioning of the wisdom of adding new TLDs to the namespace is probably where most thinking people ought to be in their reflections on the current state of the dns". Vint's opinion is an opinion that has weight, but it is just one man's opinion. And there is a much more important question of why any subjective opinion, no matter how honored the source, should constrain or limit the acts of others. There were many worthies back in the early 1970's who had the opinion that it was stupid and wasteful, if not actually a source of potential destabilization for the then existing (telco) network architectures for one to do packet switching. Had those worthies' opinions been given the weight that is given to today's worthies then we might well have never gone forward with packet switching and, eventually, the internet. We must remember that it is human nature for those who invent to become protective of their creations and to view with anxiety any move by younger (pun intended) innovators to make changes to the invention. The IETF has, for that reason, become a conservative organization that seems more bent on preserving the status quo than on promoting technical experimentation and innovation. ICANN, filled with those who have much to gain by innovative stasis, is backed by that same IETF who tend to view DNS innovation, even on as limited and safe a question as new TLDs, as something to be avoided absent a compelling reason to make a change. In other words, ICANN, supported by the technical community (of which I am a member), has tended to say "When we were younger it was appropriate for us to challange the status quo, experiement, and invent; but today invention and innovation are to be viewed as presenting a danger to 'stability' and thus newer inventors and innovators must demonstrate that what they propose is completely safe and free of risk and causes no current uses or users to have to change in any degree whatsoever." Sheesh, even the highly conservative telephone companies extended their name space with two characters ('*' and '#') when they went from rotary dial to touch pad, and that international dialing also requires '+'. Those changes caused pain and placed burdens on those who were unwilling to adapt. But ICANN is even more conservative than that - it seems that under their regime, any objection, no matter how trivial, blocks progress. - Does ICANN currently have in place a plan to deal with registry business/financial failure? No. And why should that matter? As long as the customers have had adequate reason to know or learn of the circumstances and risk before they invested their assets into creation of a name in a new TLD then I'd say that they made their choice, took their risk, and are reaping the consequences. Is ICANN a consumer protection body? - Are all ICANN-accredited registrars currently escrowing all of their registrant data as required by the terms of the RAA? No.
ICANN's house is not in order. I would sure feel better about launching new TLDs if ICANN got its act together first. Why should the community of internet users be forced to wait for an organization that seems incapable of dealing with these questions? We have waited long enough - ICANN was created in 1998 and it will soon be 2006. ICANN has constructed its house on a foundation that is substantially opposed to allowing new TLDs. The intellectual property plank of ICANN's foundation seemingly would prefer a retreat back to one TLD; the registry plank doesn't want any any new competitors, the business plank largely aligns with the intellectual property plank. Only the registrar plank an and the non-commercial plank are in favor of expansion. And the role of the community of internet users in ICANN is not to have a plank but to walk one. --karl--
|