Some people don't really understand what it means to "be accountable to everyone and no one" =)<br>I don't agree with all of the arguments stated, but I find it is good that there's social pressure for the app fee to be lower. This way, when it can be lowered (if ever), it's guaranteed we'll have some forces (including in CS) pushing for that. <br>
Best, Ivar<br><br><br>(via Berkman Buzz)<br><div id="main-article-info">
<h1>Can Icann really be necessary?</h1>
<p id="stand-first" class="stand-first-alone">It's a question worth asking as the body that oversees internet domain names will now permit any suffix you want – at a price</p>
</div>
<ul id="content-actions" class="share-links"><li class="share-links">
<ul><li class="full-line tweet tweet_button">
<br></li><li class="third-party-tool full-line facebook">
<a style="text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fcommentisfree%2Fcifamerica%2F2011%2Fjun%2F23%2Ficann-internet-domain-names&t=Can%20Icann%20really%20be%20necessary%3F%20%7C%20Dan%20Gillmor%20%7C%20Comment%20is%20free%20%7C%20guardian.co.uk&src=sp" name="fb_share"><span class="fb_share_size_Small"><span class="FBConnectButton FBConnectButton_Small" style="cursor: pointer;"><span class="FBConnectButton_Text">Share</span></span><span class="fb_share_count_nub_right"></span><span class="fb_share_count fb_share_count_right"><span class="fb_share_count_inner">12</span></span></span></a>
</li><li class="third-party-tool last-line reddit">
<span class="reddit_button">
<a target="http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fcommentisfree%2Fcifamerica%2F2011%2Fjun%2F23%2Ficann-internet-domain-names&title=" href="http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fcommentisfree%2Fcifamerica%2F2011%2Fjun%2F23%2Ficann-internet-domain-names&title=">
<img src="http://static.guim.co.uk/static/106209/common/images/icon_reddit.gif">
</a>
<a target="http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fcommentisfree%2Fcifamerica%2F2011%2Fjun%2F23%2Ficann-internet-domain-names&title=" href="http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fcommentisfree%2Fcifamerica%2F2011%2Fjun%2F23%2Ficann-internet-domain-names&title=">reddit this</a>
</span>
</li></ul>
</li><li class="b3">
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/23/icann-internet-domain-names#start-of-comments" class="content-comment-count">Comments (<span class="comment-count-val">27</span>)</a>
</li></ul>
<div id="content">
<ul class="article-attributes"><li>
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/dangillmor" rel="author">
<img class="contributor-pic-small" src="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Global/content/icons/2011/5/11/1305125502959/dangillmoor_140x140.jpg" alt="Dan Gillmor" title="Contributor picture" width="60" height="60">
</a>
</li><li id="contrib-shift"><ul><li class="byline">
<a class="contributor" rel="author" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/dangillmor">
Dan Gillmor</a>
</li><li class="publication">
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/">guardian.co.uk</a>,
Thursday 23 June 2011 18.00 BST
</li><li class="history"><a class="rollover history-link" id="history-link-byline" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/23/icann-internet-domain-names#history-link-box">Article history</a></li>
</ul></li></ul>
<div id="article-wrapper">
<div id="main-content-picture">
<img src="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/6/20/1308568672617/icann-vote-007.jpg" alt="icann vote" width="460" height="276">
<div class="caption">Icann
board members vote in a plan to expand the number of possible domain
endings, currently limited to just 22. Photograph: Roslan
Rahman/AFP/Getty Images</div>
</div>
<div id="article-body-blocks">
<p>Are you ready for .xxx, .coke and .insertyournamehere? You'd better get ready, because an <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/20/internet-domain-wave-new-suffixes">organisation with significant authority and scant accountability says you must</a>.</p>
<p>That organisation is Icann: the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/internet" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Internet">Internet</a>
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. It supervises the naming
system for internet domains. With a budget north of $60m, Icann's board
members and staff – who strike me as well-meaning, if too often unwise,
in their actions – have embedded their work into the DNA of modern
cyberspace. One would expect no less from an enterprise that can
essentially tax the internet and is simultaneously accountable to
everyone and no one. </p><p>Like Icann's operations, its rules are
complex. The organisation's key role, boiled down to the basics, is to
oversee the domain name system (DNS) – a role that gives Icann the
authority to decide what new domain-name suffixes may exist, and who
can sell and administer them. The best known "top level" domain
suffixes, at least in the US, are .com, .org and .edu; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains">they are among 22 generic suffixes</a>, along with about 250 country-level domains such as .uk, (United Kingdom), .de (Germany) .and cn (China). </p>
<p>Two recent Icann initiatives highlight its reach. The <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/222793/icann_approves_xxx_domain_for_adult_entertainment_industry.html">first was the approval earlier this year</a> of the .xxx domain, intended to be a red-light zone for cyberspace. The other, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/20/icann-domains-expansion-annnounced">announced just this week</a>,
is a plan to let people and enterprises create domain names of any kind
– for example, .Apple or .CocaCola or .treehugger – reflecting their
trademarks or specific interests. </p><p>Contrary to <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/draft-icm-rationale-18mar11-en.pdf">Icann's rationalisations (pdf)</a>,
.xxx is a terrible idea. Should it succeed, it will enrich its
promoters. But it will also likely lead, should the domain actually be
adopted widely, to widespread censorship and manipulation. Governments
are keen to restrict access to what they consider to be pornography or
block it altogether; look for laws requiring adult sites to use the
.xxx domain, so they can be more easily fenced in – or out. <a href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-03-24/news/29181495_1_new-domain-internet-corporation-websites">India has already announced</a> it will block .xxx entirely.</p>
<p>I
hope this wretched move fails for practical reasons. Adult content
providers possessing common sense will hesitate to move their
operations into a censor-friendly zone of this kind. Indeed, the <a href="http://business.avn.com/articles/technology/FSC-Launches-Anti-XXX-Campaign-Just-Say-NO-430172.html">Free Speech Coalition, an adult entertainment trade group, is urging</a> its members to boycott .xxx and stick with the tried and true .com suffix that most of them already use.</p>
<p>The
success of .com helps explain why the latest Icann move, expanding the
domain system in potentially infinite ways, is at best problematic.
It's not entirely misguided, however. In principle, the idea is
inoffensive; why not have internet addresses that fully match reality
and might (repeat: might) be more secure under certain circumstances?
And why would a company with a valuable trademark <em>not</em> want to reserve a domain suffix reflecting its trademark? </p><p>Because,
as noted, the current system isn't all that broken. Trademark disputes
already get resolved in the .com world with laws and rules of various
kinds. So, who wins by inviting every enterprise with a trademark or
valuable name to register with multiple domain suffixes? The registrars
win, of course, and so does the organisation that decides who can be a
registrar; that would be Icann, which, in effect, taxes the registrars
based on how many people they sign up for domains.</p><p>Speaking of
fees, if you want one of the new domain suffixes and are not a wealthy
individual or company, get ready to put a major dent in your bank
balance. The Icann application alone will be $185,000, with an annual
fee of $25,000. Who sets this fee? Why, Icann, of course. Is it
reasonable? Icann says it is. Why is it reasonable? Because Icann says,
based on evidence that is less than persuasive, that it needs the money
for things like legal costs. So much for small business registrations,
much less domains for individuals with relatively common last names –
how about .JohnSmithWhoWasBornInDallasOnMay51983? – which want to be as
unique in their domain name as they are in the real world.</p><p>Esther Dyson, former board chair at Icann (and a friend), <a href="http://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137308306/not-just-dot-com-but-dot-yournamehere">told NPR she considered the new domains "a useless market"</a>.
She is right, but I'd go further: Icann itself is unneeded, or should
be made to be so. Clearly, it would be unworkable to simply pull the
plug on Icann, because it has become a key link in the digital chain.
But the internet community should be working on a bypass, not
controlled in any way by governments, that is both secure and robust.</p><p>A
partial bypass already exists for end users. It's called Google –
though this also applies to Bing and other search engines. Internet
users are learning that it's easier, almost always with better results,
to type the name of the enterprise they're searching for into the
browser's search bar than to guess at a domain name and type that guess
into the address bar. Google isn't the DNS, but its method suggests new
approaches. To that end, some technologists have suggested creating a
DNS overlay, operated in a peer-to-peer way that incorporates modern
search techniques and other tools. Making this workable and secure
would be far from trivial, but it's worth the effort.</p><p>A few years
ago, I was a candidate for a post on the Icann board. During an
interview, I was asked to describe what I hoped to achieve, should I be
asked to serve. A major goal, I replied, was to find ways to make Icann
less necessary. My service was not required.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>--<br><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/23/icann-internet-domain-names">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/23/icann-internet-domain-names</a><br>