RE: [ga] New top-level internet addresses come with $100,000-plus price tag

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

Karl,
It was unfortunate that this subject came up only when the Paris meeting had
ended, as otherwise we could have taken the opportunity to discuss the
matter in person. I hope that we will have a second chance sometimes.

The problem, as I see it, is to which extent market forces can design a
stable environment, without participation of other forces, and my comment
was primarily driven by the observation that market forces are considered by
the same people either the sole arbiter of the situation, or something to be
supplemented by other means, depending on how the wind blows.
So, years ago, market forces were to be left alone in determining the
success (or failure) of competing root systems, and now some of the same
people claim the need for a different regime, mainly because the market has
made its choice, but some don't like it.

This said, I will try to comment on some specific points of your very
interesting and enlightening note.

> 
> The idea of having multiple root systems is to provide a way 
> for users and providers to interact, in a way similar to the 
> complicated ways that buyers and sellers interact in a 
> multi-vendor marketplace, to arrive at a relatively stable 
> and relatively consistent set of TLDs without the need for a 
> central decision making authority (such as ICANN.)

I can buy that, in principle. But I have some difficulties in the practical
implementation. See below.


> 
> [....]
> 
> How is this "same name, same meaning" obtained?  Through the 
> positive application of an idea that has previously been the 
> source of so much
> trouble: the laws of trade and service marks.  If two or more 
> people try to offer different versions of .example then they 
> have recourse to the legal system to resolve that dispute.

OK.
Now, if a "competing root" in, say, some Asian country, is offering the same
TLD string, with different contents, that another "competing root" is
offering in, say, Africa, which is the competent jurisdiction to resolve the
dispute? Shall WIPO create another UDRP for this case? Or should this be
done by another means?
And while WIPO (or whoever else) would have affirmed authority worldwide on
this matter, what do we do?


> 
> And, of course, while there is a viable dispute, few rational 
> root server operators would incorporate what are, in effect, 
> damaged and dangerous goods in its root's inventory of TLDs: 
> root server operators, like the rest of us, do not want their 
> customers to be surprised and to take their custom elsewhere 
> as a consequence.

This is the bit that bothers me most.
We have witnessed over the years that the DNS marketplace is a jungle where
everything might happen, more often than not surprising customers and even
governments. Registrars are fiercely competing, taking full advantage of
their operating in different jurisdictions. Even registries are behaving in
a way that can be detrimental to the security and stability of the internet,
if that suits their commercial interests (remember the wildcard?), and only
enforcement of contracts can reduce the damage to the community.
What would led us to think that competing root operators would do business
in an ethical way, agreeing to common standards and enforcing the same set
of rules, unless they are obliged by some sort of constraint ot operate in
the interest of the wider internet community rather than in their own petty
interest?
This does not happen in the real world neither for registrars nor for
registries, why on earth should we assume that it will happen for "competing
roots"? In this very mailing list ICANN has been blamed (and rightfully so)
for an initially weak attitude in enforcement of the contracts (and the
situation has changed, and is still progressing). What allows us to assume
that the "competing roots" would not need a similar contractual relationship
with a body that would have the right to demand enforcement of the
contracts? And what would this body be?

The problem that I see is that, while the use of a brand that infringes IP
rights has a limited, although sometimes important, effect if we talk about
Gucci bags or Rolex watches, confusion at the TLD level can have instant
ripercussions on the internet worldwide. And while in the former case local
laws can curbe the problem, in the latter case this is impossible. So, at
the least, we need an internationally developed and adopted body of law, and
universal acceptance of it.
Sorry, but I don't see this coming. And the reason why I don't believe that
it would ever come, is that the competing root operators would be exactly
the first people who would oppose this approach.

Cheers,
Roberto




> 
> And, in addition, informed rational domain name buyers will 
> tend to shun TLDs that are in dispute, thus giving the 
> disputants an incentive to resolve their differences.
> 
> (It is only through luck that ICANN was not caught in a legal 
> thicket when it chose to create a .biz in conflict with a 
> prior operator of a TLD with that name.  Had the prior 
> operator held her ground it is possible, even probable, that 
> ICANN may have found itself denied because of the prior use.  
> ICANN may not be so lucky in the future despite warm and 
> fuzzy noises from ICANN's has-not-always-been-right law firm 
> that would make money from ICANN should such disputes arise.)
> 
> It is highly likely that most sane root system operators will 
> pick up the current ICANN/NTIA root zone and add to that zone 
> those additional boutique TLDs that each wants to offer.
> 
> Thus we would probably end up with:
> 
>    - a legacy root with the NTIA/ICANN root zone and no 
> boutique names.
> 
>    - Other roots with the NTIA/ICANN TLDs plus such 
> uncontested others as each root choses to add.
> 
>    - A set of TLDs that are in dispute.  We can anticipate 
> that at least some roots, either from lack of knowledge of 
> the dispute or from simple stupidity or bullheadedness, will 
> pick up each of the disputed versions.
> 
>    - There will be some roots that simply chose to be 
> completely inconsistent.  These are like some of the 
> alternate roots today - and they will garner the same, nearly 
> nil, presence.
> 
>    - Root operators will strive to obtain market share.  They 
> will do this by offering enhanced services - such as placing 
> a root server onto a customer's net (and perhaps that server 
> will do recursion and caching in order to reduce name lookup 
> latency for that customer).
> 
>      And perhaps that root operator will even purchase market 
> share in the same what that Google does - by buying it.  
> Consider a root operator that will pay an ISP $$ if that ISP 
> switches to that root operator. 
> That root operator can data mine (just as ICANN permits 
> Verisign, PIR, and Afilias to do) the query stream and carve 
> out a share to pay ISPs.
> 
> Domain name buyers, if we assume that they are informed and 
> rational, will chose whether to buy names in the core set of 
> TLDs that are present in all TLDs.  Most will buy names in 
> stable core places - the .com/.org kind of places.  Some will 
> chose to buy elsewhere, perhaps due to price perhaps for 
> other reasons (for example a tight community of people, such 
> as a church, may chose a boutique name for their shared 
> purposes) - it will be a marketing effort for those boutique 
> TLDs to obtain customers. 
>   It will be an uphill effort but one that is very common in 
> the fight for shelf space that occurs with products in the 
> non-internet world.
> 
> Some boutique TLDs will grow, most will wither and die or 
> simply remain tiny and of no real consequence except to its users.
> 
> If a boutique TLD grows more and more roots will decide that 
> that TLD should be included into that root's inventory of 
> TLDs.  Thus a boutique TLD can naturally grow into a core 
> TLD.  (And, of course, core TLDs that fade or become tainted 
> may fade out of the core and become boutiques.)
> 
> I know that this is an inadequate description.  However, it 
> is merely a copy of the kind of brand-building efforts that 
> go on every day in real-life non-internet market places as 
> new products strive for market share and shelf space.  It is 
> a system that works.  It is a system that does have conflicts 
> when products stumble upon the same name (or when someone 
> tries to steal market share by forging and usurping an 
> established product name.)
> 
> This kind of system eliminates the need for a top-down 
> imposition of names, i.e. ICANN becomes just one of several 
> root zone definitions.  It is a truly bottom-up system 
> because it works through the aggregation of independent 
> choices by those who wish to create TLDs and those who chose 
> to use them.
> 
> This kind of system allows the natural growth and death of 
> TLDs.  And that life cycle depends on the efforts of the TLD 
> providers and the choices of users rather than life 
> supporting decisions from a centralized body of internet governance.
> 
> It is good that ICANN is finally opening up to new TLDs.  It 
> is bad that ICANN is creating a belief that new TLDs must 
> jump through ICANN defined hoops in which business plans and 
> financial depth are evaluated by ICANN rather than by the 
> marketplace.  (Last year I took a stab at putting together 
> what I think should be ICANN's TLD application form.  Take a 
> look at the latter part of 
> http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000324.html )
> 
> By-the-way, one would hope that ICANN will finally grant the 
> applications of the 40 remaining applicants from year 2000.  
> They have already paid their fees and have been patiently 
> waiting for 8 years.
> 
>               --karl--

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>