Re: [ga] Policy for dealing with controversial TLDs

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Comments below the fold;

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2005 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Policy for dealing with controversial TLDs


> > 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.

It probably wasn't intended to be, but it is. But as far as tlds, it has not
gone beyond the marketplace and it's scope, IMHO. Limited namespace has been
created in generic tlds, so not only are current businesses unable to
register the name they want, future generations will not be able to either.
It is in no way expanded far enough to meet current or future needs.

>
> >
> >
> > 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.

No, it's pure capitalism. If a business wants to create a tld, let them.
Restraint of trade is what is currently happening. Relaxing those rules
feeds capitalism, not marxism.

>
> >
> > 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.

But, if a foolish company or individual with the resources to do that, does
create a "coop" approach, which has been successful before, then it is their
right to do so. Again, the business plan is the business of the business
owner and to those that loan him money for the venture.

>
> >
> > 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.

How can the "capture" of namespace be considered a free market? The business
interests who currently control the best .com names have no interest in new
tlds being created. It's self-preservation. They have gotten in and closed
the door behind them. That is exactly what has occurred. What I don't get is
how it isn't obvious to everyone.

> >
> > 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?

It's been pointed out.

>
> >
> >
> > 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

In Miami, it's nice and warm.

Happy Holidays!
Chris McElroy
> >
> >
> >
>
>