Re: [ga] Policy for dealing with controversial TLDs

[sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

> At 05:40 a.m. 25/12/2005, Danny Younger wrote:
>>Recently, governments have pointed to "obvious and
>>predictable public policy issues" associated with the
>>introduction of certain TLDs.  They have cited
>>"potential ethical problems" and "significant impacts
>>on local concerns" as justification for a TLD
>>selection criterion that would examine "the real need
>>for such an introduction".
>
> Imagine an outfit sitting at the gate of  a huge enclosed public beach,
> having convinced the government that the introduction of a toll-per-head
> was a good revenue gathering and crowd control idea, then restricting this
> space only to those who could prove a NEED to be on that beach.
>
> Now think of the same happening on a beach that is infinitely large.

The fact that the dns is, practically speaking, well nigh infinite does
not in any way warrant the idea that it ought to be inifintely populated. 
This is a common misnomer and it is the equivalent of saying "because
atomic bombs make big bangs, we should drop one to see just how big the
bang really is"... The truth is that dns and the Internet have gone beyond
the marketplace and its scope.  The Internet is infrastructure and not
simply another commodity; nor is it simply another media.  The fact that
commerce happens on the Internet is significant, but it is not its
defining feature nor should it be.

>
>
> Laugh if you will, but that is the current situation in the top level
> namespace.

Joop, nobody is laughing, I can assure you.  (Aside: I believe you do have
places in New Zealand like your fanciful beach, we have them here in
Canada too and they're called national and provincial parks. :-)

>
> The controversiality of a TLD is not in its potential content (that
> content
> is now freely scattered over the secondary levels - out of the bottle, not
> likely to ever be pushed back in), it lies in the control that "holding" a
> TLD gives over the names in it's namespace and with the associated
> benefits
> of that control.
>
> What if individuals or companies that are not part of the current cosy
> club
> would end up holding a majority of TLD's and, horror, these TLD's would
> become popular?

Sooner or later, those very same individuals and companies would begin
behaving like the current "cozies" and where would that get us?  Have you
not studied history? Joop, what you and some others appear to be
preaching, sounds to me more and more like some socialist utopian ideal of
an Internet; seems kind of Marxist really.

>
> What , for example, if  such a TLD would be administered and have its
> policies determined by elected representatives of its registrants?

Forgive me for saying so, but that would be like putting a Seaman
Apprentice in sole charge of an aircraft carrier group: sheer folly. The
registrants ARE stakeholders in a TLD but they are not the only
stakeholders and the sooner we realize this the sooner we can regain our
place at the table.

>
> A free market in registration contract modalities would be the complete
> opposite of the doling out (to those who agree never to sue ICANN and
> never
> to speak critically of ICANN in public, if the proposed Verisign agreement
> is any guide) of TLD's with uniform registration contracts and it
> would  undermine the gateway.
> It would undermine ICANN.

I believe many people have an interesting conception of what a free market
may be, few have a true understanding of it.  What I have been hearing
over the past several years from many people on this list is the
equivalent of the besmirching of the so-called "robber barons" in what
many 'capitalists' point to as the Golden Age of the free market system. 
Carnegie and the rest had their detractors in their day too.

>
> What the GAC is saying is just that governments also believe in a gateway
> approach and that they want to come to mutually agreeable policies to keep
> current TLD participants happy.

And so where is the problem?

>
>
> Merry Christmas to you all.
> It's beach time here, hence the metaphor.

It's a little colder and snowier here in Canada, I'm afraid. :-)

All the Best,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
>
>