[governance] new TLDs?

[Ronda Hauben]

I am not indifferent to gTLD's as they require somebody to administer
them -- To make their delegation a business affair has an impact on
what happens to the management of the Internet's infrastructure.

The Internet is a communications infrastructure, not some neoliberal
business corporation that can be played with at whim.;

So the fact of introducing "compentition" and hence a structure to
determine who gets the riches that this so called "competition" will
yield is a means of polluting the management process for the Internet.

What is the appropriate management structure to oversee the Internet and 
its development? This question nees to be raised in a serious
way where the commercial self interests are neutralized rather than
allowed to dominate.

Instead the whole notion of commercializing the gTLD's has brought into 
the heart of the management of the Internet's infrastructure, a set of
narrow self interests trying to protect their own piece of the action.

The infrastructure to the Internet needs a different kind of management
structure than one that will cater to those supposed "stakeholders", ie.
those with a commercial self interest.

So getting rid of gTLD's would be a beginning of getting rid of the 
commercial self interests that are preventing the creation of an 
appropriate management structure for the Internet's infrastructure.

In the US I thought there was a time when telephone numbers were linked
to product names, and that was changed as it became unwieldy.

The telephone system in the US for a time was able to develop as a
regulated monopoly so that the public interest could be considered.

That resulted in Bell Labs and the important scientific breakthroughs made 
there as a gift to the world, as well as a world class telephone system in
the US.

This was not a neoliberal model of "competition". This was a different 
model where government had a role, as did regulation.

Perhaps there are lessons to be learned both from such models, as well
as from the model of the Internet's own development, in determining how
to create an appropriate management model for the Internet's 
infrastructure.

Instead the conversation is narrowed down to whether or not to have
more gTLD's and how or ifICANN should administer this.


cheers

Ronda



On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Carlos Afonso wrote:

> Wrong interpretation. I am **indifferent** to new gTLD/sTLD proposals.
> All delegations/redelegations are just business, what is the point? What
> **real** difference for the Internet as a whole is the establishment of
> a new business gTLD registry (or domain in the hands of an existing
> registry) going to make (except for the ones who profit from it)? What
> real difference was noticed on the Internet when .org was redelegated if
> anyone can "rent" vixens.org or allsex.org by just producing a valid
> credit card, just like in .com, .net etc? (Sorry, those two domains are
> already taken...)
>
> Also, we could do a good bottom-up intervention instead of worrying all
> the time about top-down interventions from governments in the name of
> "free competition" (where or how exactly??), if we managed to organize a
> significant civil society caucus within ICANN trying to tackle the whole
> strategy of the organization. And, frankly, it is funny to be upset
> about this specific "government intervention", when the whole thing is
> **legally** under a single government's intervention from the beginning
> (ICANN is just an incumbent and the regulator is the US government) --
> what can civil society do about it, this is a key issue.
>
> I think the current civil society organizations within ICANN (ALAC +
> NCUC) fail in this when they are mostly guided by the issues which are
> determined from above by ICANN's own agenda, and not derived from a
> discussion within our constituencies on what are the key governance
> issues we should deal with, and what role ICANN should really play in  a
> global governance system. I think civil society managed to go beyond the
> "agenda from above" with its input to the WGIG process -- let us try to
> deepen this within ICANN as well. Will we need to create a separate
> caucus for this?
>
> --c.a.
>
> Milton Mueller wrote:
>
>> It's good to get a frank admission from Carlos that he's basically against any new TLD proposal.
>>
>> This is a position that has some supporters, but only a very small minority of those who have considered it. Both civil society organs within ICANN (ALAC and NCUC) have adopted resolutions taking the opposite position. Most believe that competition, diversity and multilingualism will require some new TLDs.
>>
>> One can only wonder, then, about the priorities and logic of someone who supports top-down intervention by governments to bring about an outcome that he wants but most people in the process don't want.
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance