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

["Joe Baptista" <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 7:53 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams
<jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:


> You should be able to manage your own gTLD for far less than
> $185k and $75k/year in fees to ICANN for presence in the legacy
> Roots.


In real technical terms you should be able to manage your TLD for about
$6.00 per year.  Thats the best cost estimate I can provide.  It is the same
cost estimate for .com.  Let us not forget that the root is only another
domain system - it just happens to be at the top level.  The principle is no
different then .com.

But ICANN is a bullshit system that depends on user ignorance to be
exclusive and monopolistic - which it no longer is.  The ICANN root is now
dwarfed by the chinese national tld system.

regards
joe baptista


>
>
>  ICANN is a Calif. non-profit 501 (C3) corporation, and most of
> its funding by law must come from donations.  It deosn 't now, and
> never has.  That's a problem of crediability that has been with ICANN
> sense its conception.
>
> 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,
> > --
> > vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
> > -------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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!"  Barak ( 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
>
>


-- 
Joe Baptista
www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative &
Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
 Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
    Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084