[governance] Re: New TLDs

Mon Apr 23 12:49:45 EDT 2007

On 4/18/07, Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>
> >This demonstrates that TLDs cannot be treated with
> >the same freedom as (second-level) domain names,
> >just allowing any submission on a first come-first serve basis.
>
> What, Bertrand, "demonstates" that? Was there a logical proof in your
> message that I missed, or some kind of technical impossibility shown?

a) At the risk of creating a dangerous precedent of sincerity, I must
recognize you are right. Wrote too fast. The two ideas I wanted to put
forward were indeed separate. They were :

1) there is presently no consensus for unrestricted creation of TLDs, in a
simple "first come first served" manner;
2) if creation remains controlled, a single category such as "sponsored
TLDs" is not going to be enough, as the example of .xxx and the various
cases imagined by Wolfgang illustrate. Different criteria will have to be
designed.

Once again, I fully respect your "position de principe". It has coherence
and as I said : "defending that position is perfectly legitimate,
respectable and even useful". So consider my comments in general as an
effort of constructive interaction and not as "casting my policy opinions as
demonstrations". This was written too quickly and you caught the logical
error.

b) Thinking further though, the reason why I inconsciously made a connection
is probably the following : the more people (like Wolfgang or Michael did)
devote time to exploring specific delicate cases related to the creation of
TLDs or give examples of potentially contentious strings (like you did
yourself with the .f... or .abortion or . gay, etc...), the more people will
think the issue is complex and has to be handled with care. Psychological
dynamics are therefore likely to evolve against the simple (non-)rule that
happened by accident for second level names.

The parallel you make between people who would like to restrict registration
of second-level domains and those who want to restrict creation of TLDs is
not a true symmetry. As you note, in one case, the rule is freedom, in the
other the rule is control. Opening up control is a different issue than
introducing control in the absence of it.

In any case, a form of convergence has happened in second-level domains :
even with the first come first serve rule, additional principles for dispute
resolutions have been established that in reality impose restrictions on the
registration of domain names. Like it or not, this is where the consensus
has moved towards. And so there is probably little chance, on this basis,
for the complete freedom in new gTLDs you advocate. Hence my argument
encouraging those who want a broad increase in the number of TLDs to explore
the road of category-specific criteria that could strealmine applications
and reduce the barrier cost.

c) In a certain way, I could in turn note your final sentence : "freedom
happens by accident, always" and consider it is in contradiction with your
request to the community to make a very conscious choice in favor of
"complete freedom" in the case of TLDs.

But this would be cheap (although fun !) rethoric on rapidly written texts.
I prefer to help this discussion move forward. Freedom can also happen by
choice rather than accident and, to recall Steve Crocker's remarkable
statement in Lisbon, we are here 100% in control of the resource creation
and the rules that apply to them.

This is public policy at the best it can be. It is about public interest and
value creation, not only economic value, but also social value creation, and
the optimal balance between both. It is about political choices. And the
choice is fully ours.

d) On substance, I do think there is a benefit in maintaining some
differences between TLDs and second-level names, because of the higher
visibility of the former and their potential structuring value for users and
the whole domain name space. TLDs in particular can be envisaged as a
controlled vocabulary, progressively expanded to facilitate identification
of communities online.

As you may note, I did not say there "are" differences between TLDs and
second-level names.  I wrote  "I believe there is benefit in maintaining"
some differences. Because it is a choice for all of us to make. Not a fact
of life. And my formulation is indeed what I think is in the global public
interest. But I may be wrong or convinced otherwise and only the debate will
tell where the ultimate balance lies.

Likewise there would be more coherence in saying  that "TLD space should
just be a market" than in saying "TLD space is a market". Because it is just
one possible option, one element of the puzzle. Not a fact.

As I accepted the criticism of having inadvertantly "cast my policy opinions
as demonstrations", please accept that what is sometimes presented as facts
(TLD space is simply a market, creation of new TLDs is a freedom of
expression issue) is rather facets of the issue and often the expression of
personal - even if legitimate - policy preferences. Distinguishing facts
from opinions and choices that are in our responsibility is the foundation
for sound debate.

e) In any case, this exchange will certainly not close the debate. This is
why I mentionned in the last point 5) of my post the need for an open
discussion on that. Otherwise, we'll just reproduce the misunderstanding on
.xxx and generate the same frustrations and angers.

I know views are still very diverse within the gNSO, but we shouldn't launch
a new round of calls for submission without some deeper interaction betwen
actors, particularly between gNSO, ALAC and GAC members.

Looking forward to it.

Best

Bertrand

-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle

Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070423/40257acb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070423/40257acb/attachment.txt>