<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 30 June 2013 02:32 PM, Adam
Peake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:9D6D47CA-B4A4-41DA-AEFB-C198D0F49A0D@glocom.ac.jp"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">ICANN board's New gTLD Program Committee has been thinking about these issues. See
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun13-en.htm#2.c">http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun13-en.htm#2.c</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://domainincite.com/13558-icann-freezes-closed-generic-gtld-bids">http://domainincite.com/13558-icann-freezes-closed-generic-gtld-bids</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks for this... So sense has finally prevailed and the chapter of
closed generics (.book etc being given as closed/ private gtlds to
the Amazon company and the such) is, well, closed.... This is one of
the most important pieces of information to come out of the domain
name governance system for a long while.... Wonder, why the ICANN
system/ community is so shy to share such real news of real concern
to people..... I mean, I am on so many IG lists, and I hadnt heard
about it.... (While one keeps hearing about all kinds of matters of
'form' - which meeting will be held and in which manner - a truly
post modern scenario where 'form' seems to have entirely overtaken
all concern for 'substance'.)<br>
<br>
Although, one can see why the ICANN system/ community might be a bit
shame faced about it... Finally, it was clearly some extraneous
factors that led to stopping of what would have been a loot of
generic words by a few big corporations, already big enough, and
dominating so many essential aspects of our digital lives, to be
able to make solid capital out of exclusive digital ownership of
these generic words which were supposed to be gifted to them by
ICANN... (BTW, I wrote an <a
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beauty-lies-in-the-domain-of-the-highest-bidder/article3929612.ece">op
ed</a> on the subject a few months back, which was followed by an
<a
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/no-icann/article3932668.ece">editorial</a>
by the same newspaper.)<br>
<br>
So, now that the decision has been taken, we can turn our attention
to the process.... One still isnt sure who is the real decision
maker in the ICANN system... Basically the board? Which decides
after taking an ad hoc stock of how the big powers - commercial and
governmental (very importantly, the US) - are placed? And the board
itself is selected largely by a hardly democratic nomcom
process..... What of all the, so so celebrated, bottom up process,
which in the present case so abjectly surrendered to big commercial
interests. It completely failed to stop the generic words loot. It
is this 'failure' in an area of work output which is central to
domain name governance system that holds some very important lessons
for us. And most of the civil society - if not all - involved in the
ICANN system was complicit in it - I mean either actively supported,
or simply went along with the closed generics proposal. Would this
civil society - persons and groups - explain their stand and
justifications to us, especially now that despite them we have been
saved the loot of generic words in their digital address forms?<br>
<br>
Also, a pity that IGC never discussed this key substantive issue
related to ICANN, while form related matter of ICANN are frequently
discussed. Maybe, now we can discuss it as a post mortem.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:9D6D47CA-B4A4-41DA-AEFB-C198D0F49A0D@glocom.ac.jp"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Adam
On Jun 30, 2013, at 4:03 PM, parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
On Friday 28 June 2013 08:42 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This letter from Senator Jay Rockefeller, chair of the Commerce Committee to ICANN's Dr. Steven D. Crocker - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://images.politico.com/global/2013/06/26/rockefeller_letter_to_icann.html">http://images.politico.com/global/2013/06/26/rockefeller_letter_to_icann.html</a> - might be of interest to the list.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
The senator's letter makes some very important points. Although it comes mostly from trademark owners' point of view while the problems in the new round of gTLDs associated with general community ownership of linguistic terms are underplayed, but that is perhaps expected from a mainstream US politician.
GAC in their communiqué at the end of Beijing ICANN meeting proposed two very important things with regard to new gtlds
(1) "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal"
(2) "Strings that are linked to regulated or professional sectors should operate in a way that is consistent with applicable laws (and)... establish a working relationship with the relevant regulatory....bodies "
I think civil society groups like the IGC should endorse these very important 'advices' which have a far reaching implication vis a vis how domain names allocation system functions.... Purely as a highest-bidder, market based system, or as a public interest oriented governance system.
These 'advices" represent the abject failure of the ICANN system to meet public interest requirements concerned with its global governance functions..... And I see this failure as kind of systemic. ICANN has somehow organised itself to *not* be able to address real world public interest issues, despite committees over committees over independent experts that it may designate on any issue - as it of course did it on the new gTLDs issue.
Now, if you ask anyone on the street what does ICANN do, one is likely to say, if at all recognising the organisation, that it allocates top level domain names like .com..... and to that extent the new round of gTLDs represent ICANN's basic function.... and that it failed so miserably to address and uphold key public interest issues in terms of its basic function says a lot about the ICANN governance paradigm...
parminder
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Best,
Tom Lowenhaupt
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>