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

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

Siva and all,

  No a TLD is not the only or even necessarily the best solution,
but that wasn't the larger point Vittorio was making or appeared
to be making.

  What is fare more important the the process by which TLD's
are created and added into the legacy root, and the cost's ICANN
is desiring or claiming are necessary for same.

  Seems to me, as well as Vittorio and others that ICANN is trying to
price out much of the potential pent up demand for new TLD's.  That
is another arbitrary form of Restraint of Trade, not to mention a potential
violation of US constitutional law under the 1st amendment it one excepts
that a TLD, a mere string of characters and a representation of a vurtural
address or set of addresses accordingly in the DNS hiarchial structure.
And all this manipulating in the interest assuming a protection role of
certain IP special interests groups...

  Not a good history for ICANN, and a very bad example of good
governance.  And those responsible shall go down in history in
infamy.

  But I worry nor fear, for change has begun anew.  A new dawn
has begun.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> I have read a little somewhere on the issues raised in the thread, and have
> learnt a little more,  to add the following:
>
> It is harder to run a TLD than it appears on the surface. Vittorio's
> commitment to  preserve a dying language is to be applauded, but is a TLD
> the only solution? Is it difficult to achieve what is intended with a
> lower-hierarchy solution, like an SLD or lower, or even simply a portal?
> Such a solution would cost less and can go up online even faster than the
> complex solution of a dedicated gTLD.
>
> In addition to the general comments on my previous response in this thread,
> here are some specific comments and questions, this time, pointed directly
> at Parminder.
>
> It appears that the underlying idea of  Parminder's domain for "public
> domain content"  is to promote free flow of knowledge by enabling a
> non-copyright culture and the idea of establishing it as a domain where IP
> addresses are NOT logged appears to be that of promoting free speech.
>
> Why would free flow of knowledge be confined to a specific gTLD? Why not in
> .com, .in and .org or even in .gov ?  There are several tools such as the
> Creative Commons license available to achieve that Universally - rather than
> promote this universally why move to confine freedom to a specific TLD?
>
> If the idea is to keep an entire TLD open for those who are oppressed and
> are in need of space for free speech, a TLD isn't right, because EVERYTHING
> that is free can be filtered out with one stroke - block this TLD, and
> everything gets blocked.
>
> The idea of promoting free flow of knowledge and disabling IP logging needs
> to become ubiquitous, not restricted to the domain of a domain.
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy.
> http://wealthyworld.blogspot.com
>
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:49 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <
> isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hello Vittoria, Parminder,
> >
> > I deviate from the encouraging messages that you have received so far,
> > because I think it gets a little complicated when a gTLD is thought of as
> > desirable to promote every cause. When it comes to languages there is an
> > estimated 3000 to 8000 languages spoken in planet earth Apart from languages
> > there are several different causes - for example, the hearing disabled have
> > a cause to ask to for a separate domain.
> >
> > Do we need a domain for every cause? Wouldn't it suffice if there is a
> > collaborative website or a social network? What difference would it make if
> > you opt to have a social network for your people in place of a gTLD?
> >
> > ICANN or any other organ in its place would find it far more complicated to
> > manage a thousand gTLDs and IDNs due to such complications as IP issues,
> > whether or not we agree with the concept of IP or not. And there are several
> > complications that I have not thought about
> >
> > Aside from that,. Parminder's message to the list raises some interesting
> > questions on ICANN's existing policies (without going into aspect of the
> > correctness of the policy a gTLD can be reserved for a social group or a
> > business entity as long as the applicant is willing to pay $185000 upfront
> > and can commit to pay $75,000 a year.) and the limitations of it.
> >
> > The fee is prohibitive, I have my comments on that, but would move on to
> > another dimension, not quite in tune with the discussions taking place on
> > this thread.
> >
> > I fell that at-Large may even have to consider proposing a broader criteria
> > for evaluation of gTLD and other domain applications.
> >
> > 'Ownership' of a gTLD implies a bit of power and status and the ownership
> > of a gTLD in comparison with the ownership of a social networking portal
> > offers the 'owner' a higher degree of credibility, real or perceived.  If a
> > gTLD is positioned as a domain for Governments, the prima facie perception
> > is that the website is a government website, if it is positioned as a domain
> > for academia, the prima facie perception is that it is the website of an
> > academic institution etc.
> >
> > That is in general. Parminder's interesting idea talks about administrative
> > such as a domain specific policy to reverse default arrangements such as
> > "all rights reserved" or even technical possibilities such as a domain where
> > the interactions are free of IP logging.
> >
> > Such possibilities make it more important to have a broader criteria for
> > evaluation of the gTLD and other applications. A gTLD that says that is
> > reserved to be a medium for free speech would attract such free speech that
> > the regulators would hate, so the allocation needs to be made on the ability
> > of the applicant to preserve such values. (Don't take this as any kind of
> > comment on Parminder's proposal or as an argument against his overture. It
> > is just that I am prompted to make a general comment triggered by the
> > situation that he presented)
> >
> > What if there is a domain application for a .anonymizer domain that makes
> > users believe that they are anonymous, but in reality a trap where users are
> > even more thoroughly monitored ?  Isn't that how most anonymous proxy
> > servers work?
> >
> > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 6:42 PM, Parminder <parminder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Congratulations, Vittorio, for an outstanding letter. We support both your
> >> position on how a 'public forum' should be conducted, and the substantive
> >> issue of the need for some pubic interest criteria to guide allotment of
> >> gTLDs.
> >>
> >> My organization, IT for Change, during a workshop on CIRs governance
> >> frameworks at IGF Rio had proposed a gTLD exclusively for public domain
> >> content - .pd or .pdc (public domain content).
> >>
> >> Since, the default IP status of all content, where nothing to the contrary
> >> is mentioned, is of 'all rights reserved', it will greatly be in public
> >> interest to have an online space where this default is reversed (it could
> >> be
> >> a part of domain taking arrangement). This will help all those who do not
> >> have any IP attachments to their online interactions and the content they
> >> may put out.  From the 'real world' experience we know that this is true
> >> of
> >> a very big part of our social interactions.
> >>
> >> This will reverse the un-necessary side-effect of using the virtual space
> >> whereby every social interaction gets IP-ized, unless stated otherwise.
> >> That, in our opinion, is not the natural state of our world, nor does it
> >> represents the desire or interests of the majority.
> >>
> >> However, it is not possible to take this idea forward, for which we have
> >> found very good support among many public interest groups, due to the
> >> 'entry
> >> barrier' costs associated with GTLD allocation, with no public interest
> >> considerations whatsoever.
> >>
> >> Parminder
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: at-large-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:at-large-
> >> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola
> >> > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 2:13 PM
> >> > To: at-large@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > Subject: [At-Large] My comments on new gTLDs and the role of ICANN
> >> >
> >> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy
> >
>
> --
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy
> _______________________________________________
> 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