[governance] It's Time to Stop ICANN's Top-Level Domain (TLD)

[Roland Perry]

In message 
<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108D804 at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, 
at 10:23:08 on Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> 
writes
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Roland Perry [mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com]
>>
>> We should not forget the history - new gTLDs have been introduced
>> steadily over the last ten years; starting with .biz .info and .museum,
>> and finishing (I would say) with .post this year; and has always been a
>
>Not quite correct. The first round (in 2000), was considered an 
>"experiment" or "proof of concept". Only 7 were added.
>The second round was artificially restricted to so-called "sponsored 
>top level domains" although that restriction ended up being honored 
>more in the breach than in substance. Only 8 or so more were added.

Slowly and steadily added, and yes there were deliberate attempts to 
explore different models to see which worked best.

>What needs to happen, and is finally happening now, is to define a 
>standardized process to apply for and get new TLDs, so that this is a 
>routine part of ICANN's process and not considered some big exception 
>or massive privilege. As new linguistic groups and communities come on 
>to the internet there will always be a demand for new top level domains.

And this was always going to happen once the experimental phase was 
over.

>> But later on, a problem arose with the application for .xxx, in so far
>> as the decision-making process (to use Vint Cerf's words) "failed to
>> converge". Every time it came to a vote, the board seemed to be more
>
>This is not what happened, either. What happened is that the US 
>government intervened after the decision was made and threw the whole 
>process off the rails. This is well documented in the .xxx independent 
>review process. So well documented, that ICM Registry won.

I remember sitting in the room (at an ICANN meeting) when Vint gave the 
explanation I have recounted above. And I remember one of the split 
votes, with board members making additional statements about what had 
(or had not) influenced their decision either way.

>> He therefore resolved to create (and I simplify) a new "one size fits
>> all" approval process which would streamline the situation and remove as
>> much as possible of the subjective decision-making. Which is the DAG etc
>> that we see coming ever closer to delivery.
>
>False again. The decision to create an ongoing new TLD addition process 
>had nothing to do with the .xxx mess

Again, I recall Vint saying that .xxx was the last one where they wanted 
to use an individualised process, with no more applications under the 
"old schemes".

> - indeed, the preparation for a new TLD process preceded the .xxx 
>fiasco.

Starting the preparations for that transition as early as possible is a 
prudent activity.

>Developing an ongoing process is perfectly sensible

I agree. This wasn't supposed to be a posting about .xxx - more an 
introduction to the new gTLD regime as a logical development.

-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t