[bestbits] Re: [governance] Letter from U.S. Senator Rockefeller to ICANN on new TLDs

[parminder]

On Sunday 30 June 2013 02:32 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> ICANN board's New gTLD Program Committee has been thinking about these issues. See
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun13-en.htm#2.c
>
> http://domainincite.com/13558-icann-freezes-closed-generic-gtld-bids

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'.)

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 op ed 
<http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beauty-lies-in-the-domain-of-the-highest-bidder/article3929612.ece> 
on the subject a few months back, which was followed by an editorial 
<http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/no-icann/article3932668.ece> 
by the same newspaper.)

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?

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.

parminder


>
> Adam
>
>
> On Jun 30, 2013, at 4:03 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday 28 June 2013 08:42 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
>>> This letter from Senator Jay Rockefeller, chair of the Commerce Committee to ICANN's Dr. Steven D. Crocker - http://images.politico.com/global/2013/06/26/rockefeller_letter_to_icann.html - might be of interest to the list.
>> 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
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Tom Lowenhaupt
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130630/411aa3a8/attachment.htm>