Re: [ga] gTLDs and the heretofore flawed ICANN paradigm

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Richard,

In response to Stuart Lynn's earlier call for an
examination of taxonomic considerations, Milton
Mueller posted the following observation to
ICANNwatch:

"The plan notes that the President will ask the DNSO
for its opinion on whether a taxonomic or open
approach will be used for name space additions. My
frank opinion is that a moment?s thought will reveal
that engagement with that question is a waste of time.
The taxonomic approach is not a real option. Over 40
million legacy registrations, more than half of them
in one TLD, make it impossible at this stage of the
DNS?s development to ?rationalize? the name space by
promulgating a classificatory TLD scheme. The name
space can only evolve through accretion; i.e., by the
gradual addition of new TLDs that meet naming needs
not adequately met by existing names. Taxonomies and
organized naming structures can and do exist within
TLDs (as well as in portals, search engines, private
keyword spaces, and digital libraries). But the idea
of a global DNS taxonomy that divides the entire
Internet up into neat little cubbyholes once and for
all is an impossibility.

The pre-commercial Internet cannot be used as a
counterexample. The ARPA-Internet?s original naming
taxonomy was developed for a tiny, closed network of
academic researchers and government agencies. The
community involved was composed entirely of
English-speaking participants in a common computer
culture. If you think that a planned taxonomy is
?rational,? let me remind you of the fate of .com in
Postel?s original taxonomy. As conditions changed, one
TLD ? dot com ? suddenly found itself with 87% of all
registrations in the USA and over 75% of all
registrations worldwide, leading to a level of
flatness and imbalance in the DNS?s hierarchical
structure that we are still recovering from. No
planner can anticipate the unanticipated; a taxonomic
structure ? even assuming that it was possible to
force users to fit into the categories the planners
create for them ? will quickly be obsolete in a
complex, changing, multicultural world."

I'm not sure that I agree with Milton.  I tend to
prefer the "Town Planner" approach that you have
referenced in that I tend to think of TLDs as zones
(and I am comfortable with the idea of community
zoning boards).  Perhaps we should further explore
this idea.



--- Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Sotiris,
> 
> This is interesting. Are you talking about some kind
> of taxonomy - some kind
> of structure and strategy for the development of
> TLDs within various groups
> and categories?
> 
> In this scheme, I suppose the overarching structure
> could be planned, and
> then the entrepreneurs could initiate their TLDs in
> a way which subordinates
> these New TLDs to an overall structure /
> architecture?
> 
> If ICANN (in its multi-constituency capacity) became
> a kind of town
> planner - designing (in agreement with others) the
> layout of the different
> precincts of the town - then the entrepreneurs could
> be given the chance to
> design and build their TLD houses in appropriate
> neighbourhoods.
> 
> It would not be rocket science to design this kind
> of architecture, to add
> New TLDs within different neighbourhoods of this
> architecture, and (as I
> think Karl suggested) to update the info on
> available TLDs in any given root
> or roots on a weekly basis.
> 
> This might allow a somewhat more navigable TLD
> environment, while still
> allowing for entry (in appropriate neighbourhoods)
> for any entity that meets
> the technical criteria.
> 
> Richard H
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 6:15 PM
> Subject: [ga] gTLDs and the heretofore flawed ICANN
> paradigm
> 
> 
> > All,
> >
> > What is wrong with the current and past gTLD
> introduction, management and
> > oversight processes?
> >
> > The current ICANN paradigm is nothing more than a
> short-sighted licensing
> > schema which provides licensees (both registries
> and registrars) with a
> > license to 'print money' in the form of residual
> registration and related
> > service(s) income(s) in perpetuity.  What is
> required is nothing less than
> > a reevaluation of all heretofore processes and
> policy vis a vis domain
> > names.  It is still possible to establish a DNS
> built for the ages based
> > on a long-term perspective, as opposed to the
> current short-term gain
> > models that have already been implemented and are
> continuing to be
> > proposed.
> >
> > To liken domain names to telephone numbers (as
> many people in ICANN do) is
> > a seriously flawed approach.  Domain names are NOT
> similar to telephone
> > numbers.  A more fruitful, indeed more
> appropriate, analogy would be to
> > consider gTLDs (and all TLDs) as being similar to
> area codes.  It requires
> > little imagination to conceptualize what would
> happen to/within the ITU
> > and its structures if they were to start
> arbitrarily introducing a whole
> > slew of new area codes simply because each of
> their 'licensees' (for lack
> > of a better term) wished to do so in the name of
> "innovation" and the
> > prospect of tuening a few bucks.
> >
> > I would be happy to expound upon my solution to
> the current problems but
> > that would require much time and energy on my
> behalf.  I cannot do so
> > without recompense because the effort to produce
> such a model would
> > detract from my livelihood.  However, I do have a
> unified approach in mind
> > and would be willing to help the ICANN
> administration out of their current
> > difficulties by providing a set of viable and
> imaginative solutions.
> >
> > In short, I have spent a good deal of time
> studying the problem and I know
> > how to fix it.  If anyone at ICANN is really
> interested in a long-term
> > solution they can contact me.
> >
> > Amiably,
> >
> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com