Re: [ga] Vint: on the basic rationale for adding TLDs and any contra-indications

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 08:50 a.m. 10/12/2005, Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Danny Younger wrote:
>
> > I'll admit that I hadn't yet considered the issue of
> > processing and management limitations... does anyone
> > have some thoughts on this consideration?
>
> To add a new TLD requires:
>
> 1. Logging on to the computer that holds the master zone file for .
>
> 2. Opening up your favorite editor
>
> 3. Typing a few (usually on the order of five) relatively simple text 
> lines into a file that represents the root zone.
>
> 4. Doing a *very* careful review of what you have added.
>
> 5. Saving the file
>
> (A better system would use a database and have scripts to construct the 
> actual file from the DB, but in that case the above merely changes to be a 
> simple database insertion.)
>
> You might also write into some other file the contact information for 
> those who run the TLD.
>
> From personal experience, it takes very little time (minutes at most) to 
> do this.
>
> ICANN has wrapped this basic process with layers upon layers upon layers 
> of voodoo.
>
> Some of that voodoo might be useful - such as probing to see if the 
> delegated-to servers are actually alive and answering.  However the vast 
> bulk of ICANN's TLD voodoo is doodoo.
>
> Remember, ICANN is a self-preserving bureaucracy; it is in their self 
> interest to make everything seem as complex and arcane as possible.
>
> The IANA function is to a large degree simply adding one to the previously 
> allocated number.  It is rote mechanical clerical work to take a request 
> for a new enterprise number, find the existing maximum, add one, write 
> down the result, enter it into the big book of internet numbers, and close 
> the request.  Some numbers are harder to "add one" to than others - 
> sometimes UDP/TCP service port numbers need to fit into certain ranges and 
> fit into spaces not occupied by other number allocations.  OK, in those 
> cases one looks at a comprehensive version of /etc/services and finds an 
> unused number.
>
> Adding new TLDs is, when we get down to the basic act of doing it, not all 
> that much work - a minute or two with a text editor, a few seconds if a 
> simple script has been written to do the editing.
>
>                 --karl--

The ultimate rationale for allowing the addition of new TLD  surely must be 
the Free Market.
There must be competition, so that Internet Users don't get ripped off 
and/or robbed of their rights.

Is allowing competition  not the best consumer protection?

Domain Name registrants are not even just consumers of domain names.
They are producers of domain names and creators of Domains.
As producers they are even more deserving of protection.

The existing TLD's all have captive markets (with the "ICANN accredited" 
registrars as middlemen) and so get away with extremely 
registrant-unfriendly contracts.

Why  dot ca gets away with stipulating that the registrant gives up all his 
property rights in his domain name??
see http://www.circleid.com/posts/is_a_domain_name_property/#1624


Because there is no dot canada to run to, a registry that would offer a 
registration contract that does just the opposite and specifically 
strengthens the owner's property rights in his domain.
At half the price.

There would be a dot aotearoa to compete with dot nz, and the competition 
could well focus on the contractual rights.

It doesn't mean that .nz would have to fear an instant and massive 
defection of registrants. But there would be freedom of choice between 
different utility providers.

Karl is also right in saying that the artificial/regulatory blocking of new 
TLD's stifles innovation.

There could be a naturally evolving self-defined naming structure; a kind 
of wikipedia of TLD applications, with a volunteer-driven process that 
would allow an application to transparently mature into an actual registry 
ownership, an application  fee of  $500 (instead of $50.000), and an income 
stream for an ICANN-like entity under light UN oversight allowing it to 
develop as an experimental form of global governance of  trans-border assets.
Let the best net-gods thrive.

(If the EU would only propose something like that to WSIS)

"Customer confusion" or  added enriching innovation?

Of course the incumbent  monopolies with their captive customers, their 
de-facto power and their lobby are not stepping aside quietly. There is 
quite a bit to lose.

But with every new form of assets the natural progression has always been 
from restriction by a (royal or priestly) hierarchy towards individual 
property rights, economic liquidity and free trade.

First there is always the fight for the legal possession of the property 
rights in the assets.

Still waiting for a Supreme Court to rule on it.


-joop-