[governance] FW: [IP] from Dyson -- ICANN What's the .rush? - The Washington Post

Tue Dec 13 05:12:02 EST 2011

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Esther Dyson <edyson at edventure.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [IP] ICANN What's the .rush? - The Washington Post
To: David Farber <dave at farber.net>
Cc: ip <ip at listbox.com>

Dave - 

Thanks so much for reposting this. I know everyone is concerned (and justly)
about SOPA right now, but ICANN is unaccountable to anyone except its own
coterie of registries, registrars, trademark lawyers. In theory, it's
accountable to the public, but the public pays no attention.... So,
everyone, please pay attention!  In 5 years, people will use Google et al.
instead of URLs anyway, but in the meantime a TLD 1 percent is going to get
rich by confusing and "protecting" the 99 percent. 

here is my own written testimony for the Senate Commerce Committee hearing
last week:

Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchinson, esteemed
Senators, Committee staff and others, for your attention to this important
issue.  As a private citizen with a variety of affiliations but beholden to
no single employer or institution, I am honored to be here today.  

My name is Esther Dyson.  I was the founding chairman of ICANN's board, from
its inception in September 1998 until late in 2000. I continued as a member
of the ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee for a year or two after that, and
subsequently went on with the rest of my life.  I am a casual user of domain
names; I have a couple registered that I don't use, and then I have owned
and used edventure.com since before my ICANN tenure.  As an investor, a
board member of non-profit and for-profit companies and as a user of the
Internet, I do have a substantial interest in freedom of speech and freedom
to innovate.  

Other than that, I have no particular business interests in the domain name
system, and I paid my own way here today.  Moreover, unlike most of the
public, I have the private resources, the time and the insider knowledge to
come here to give you what I hope you will find to be an informed and useful
perspective.

I come as a loving critic to improve ICANN, not to bury it. 

Some brief history

When I joined the board of ICANN back in 1998, the majority of its members
had almost no experience with the Internet and attempted to serve the
interests of a broad public.   At the time, our primary mission was to break
the monopoly of Network Solutions (which managed .com among other
registries), first by separating the functions of registry (which manages
the list of names in a particular top-level domain) and registrar (which
resells second-level domain names to the public).   

We succeeded in that, and we also managed to launch a few new TLDs,
including .biz, .info, .museum and .coop. Of those, only .biz and .info have
had much success.  Separately, a number of creative people - whose
initiative I sincerely applaud - made special-purpose TLDs out of country
codes (ccTLDs) such as .tv (Tuvalu), .md (Moldova), .ly (Libya) and most
recently .co (Colombia).  

At the same time, it's fair to say that .com retained its first-mover
advantage as by far the leading TLD.  Users instinctively type
COMPANYNAME.com into their browsers.

I myself was a big fan of the concept of new TLDs.  I believed that it would
broaden the market, encourage innovation (as with the repurposed ccTLDs I
mentioned above)...and besides, why should ICANN enforce artificial
scarcity?

But I have since changed my mind.  Now I would like to explain why, and
finally to suggest some paths forward.  

Why I changed my mind - Confusing to the public

After my two-year term as chairman of ICANN expired in 2000, I joined the
At-Large Advisory Committee.  Our mission was to make sure the voice of the
ultimate users - not just the sellers, resellers and buyers of domain names
- was heard.  That turned out to be an almost impossible task.  Naturally
enough, normal members of the public did not have the time or interest (or
funds) to involve themselves in ICANN's business.  Despite numerous
attempts, we failed to atttract more than a few thousand people at best to
our various meetings, online conversations, requests for comment and the
like.  Our online message board was mostly painful to read.  When I finally
resigned from the ALAC, I too found ICANN too removed from my daily
interests to pay much attention to its activities. 

Why I changed my mind - Lack of oversight

Our premise for new TLDs was that we would select registry managers who
would add value to their  TLDs and monitor the behavior of their registrars,
who would in turn make sure that the registrants followed whatever
requirements the registries imposed.  In fact, the business overall has
become one of sleazy marketing practices, front-running (where registrars or
related parties buy names for their own accounts, competing unfairly with
their customers) and a high proportion of spammy domains.  Unfortunately,
the ease and lack of accountability with which someone can buy a domain name
has led to a profusion of spam, phishing and other nefarious sites.  There's
no reason to think the situation would be any better with the next set of
new TLDs; there would simply be more of them.  

And as the case of .xxx shows, many of the second-level domain-name
purchasers who do have honest intentions will probably be more interested in
defensive registrations rather than adding value to the system.  (One such
case is that of Meetup.com, out of whose office I work and on whose board I
sit. Meetup has attempted to register Meetup.xxx, but has been told the name
has been reserved on the "premium queue" to be auctioned off to the highest
bidder.  Even more perversely, Meetup cannot even bid at auction for its own
trademarked name unless it somehow becomes registered as a member of the
"adult community," which is at odds with the very nature of its business and
the very reason it sought to reserve the name.   Meetup's only remedy
ultimately will be to file an expensive and time-consuming trademark
lawsuit.)

Why I changed my mind - Misallocation of resources

Our initial assumption was that new TLDs would be relatively cheap.  But
ICANN's current plan envisions an expensive application process and
expensive registrations.  

The amount of money likely to be spent on these new TLDs - both by new
applicants and registrants, and by incumbents protecting their names -  is
huge, at a time when businesses and consumers are just scraping by.  I
believe in innovation, but only if it adds value. In this case, most of the
new domains would simply add friction. 

As with .xxx, where many of the registrants are actually companies who want
to make sure their name is not used in .xxx, I predict that many or most of
the new registrations will be defensive.  Marriott.com, for example, works
fine; why do they need marriott.hotels except defensively?  (Or why do they
need to own .marriott?) 

The rationale is that there's a shortage of domain names... but actually,
there's a shortage of space in people's heads.  When you add, for example,
.hotel, you are not creating new space; you are carving up the <hotel> space
in people's heads into .com and .hotel.  So was that Marriott.com or
Marriott.hotel?  or dyson.com or dyson.hotel? if I decide to rent out my
apartment.  Consumers will inevitably be confused, and the primary
beneficiaries will be Google, trademark lawyers...and of course the
registries and registrars. 

In short, it's as if you owned a field, and you paid a border guard.  Now
the border guards want you to pay separately for each little chunk in your
field; it's still the same field, but now it's carved into ever-smaller
pieces. To use my own small field as an example, the field was originally
called edventure.com.  Now the new chunks could be labeled edventure.angel,
edventure.blog, edventure.nyc, edventure.post, edventure.fin .... and
perhaps I'll also be solicited to buy the TLD .edventure so that some
educational or editorial group won't get hold of it.  

In the end, new domain names are somewhat like derivatives: They add
complexity and transactions and lots of rights and obligations without
actually creating anything of value.  

Context: Innovation can happen without new TLDs

I have heard from people who say that the new TLDs will lead to great
innovation.  I once thought so too.  I had visions of .fin as high-value,
highly secure TLD for regulated financial services, for example.  Right now,
there are people who want to launch .eco and .green as the foundation of a
<green> marketing campaign that would purportedly do untold good for the
world at large.  But what's wrong with edventure.com/green? 

Meanwhile, there is innovation in namespaces, but it comes with overall
innovation.  One of the best and simplest examples I can think of is
twitter, where I am @edyson or  <http://twitter.com/#!/edyson>
http://twitter.com/#!/edyson - a fine use of an existing TLD. 

Remedies ....

Of course, my task here does not end with complaining.  What should be done?
First of all, it is not the role of Congress to tell ICANN what to do. ICANN
is accountable to the worldwide public, not to the US Government (except
through one limited contract).  But it is the role of Congress to shed light
on issues of public interest, and to suggest politely that ICANN follow
through more fully on its acknowledged obligation to solicit public
feedback.  As I discovered during my time at ICANN, it's hard to get the
public interested in these matters.  (In that respect too, domain names are
like derivatives.) 

As I mentioned, ICANN has indeed followed the process of soliciting public
opinion, but I do not believe they have obtained <informed consent,> in the
sense that people actually understand the issues.  

Much broader consultation with the public

Therefore, although personally I would like to see ICANN simply abandon this
program, I have been told again and again that this is not <realistic.>   If
that is indeed the case,  I would recommend that ICANN rapidly re-launch its
consultation process with much broader outreach.  Perhaps these hearings and
the subsequent press coverage will help to inform the broader public and
shade ICANN's approach to new TLDs.

Much stronger front-end protection

At the same time, ICANN could offer much broader and easier protection (from
similar-sounding TLDs) to existing registrants, akin to what ICANN itself
has and what the Red Cross is asking for.  Of course, this would obviate
much of the interest in the new domain names, but it is a proper obligation
for ICANN to undertake, in my opinion.  

Conclusion

The current domain name system in some ways is an accident of history.
ICANN was created to regulate it, independently of any government and on
behalf of the Internet - and world - community as a whole.  Just as with
fishing rights, communications spectra, taxi medallions and other <commons,>
there's a delicate balance between too few and too many domain names, which
this new initiative may well upset if it goes forward without more serious
study.  As the old saying goes:  If it ain't broke, don't fix it! 

I would welcome any questions. 

On Dec 12, 2011, at 9:46 AM, David Farber wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-rush/2011/12/09/gIQA5Ms9nO_
story.html

ICANN reports to no one - a decision made when the group was created during
the Clinton administration to protect Internet independence. The group has
made some adjustments in response to concerns, including creation of a
trademark clearinghouse and a "rapid response" process to allow legitimate
rights holders to quickly knock out imposters. Officials have said that some
nonprofits may be permitted to pay lower fees.

Although the plan has been six years in the making, it is not ready for
prime time. ICANN officials acknowledge that they are still working out some
details, including certain protections for trademark holders. The Justice
Department and other law enforcement agencies have expressed concerns about
enforcement.

ICANN should not approve new names until enforcement and protection issues
are resolved. Even then, it should approve at most a few, to allow the
marketplace to absorb and weigh the changes. ICANN would be wise to move
slowly; its legitimacy and Internet efficacy are at stake.

snip

-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/124966-899eea08
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?
<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&> &
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?
<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?&&post_id=20111212094620:0B2BF592-24D0
-11E1-A2D1-BF5D4049111E>
&&post_id=20111212094620:0B2BF592-24D0-11E1-A2D1-BF5D4049111E
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Esther Dyson
edyson at edventure.com

c/o Meetup HQ
632 Broadway, 10th floor
New York, NY 10012
USA

www.edventure.com
www.flickr.com/photos/edyson
@edyson

Always make new mistakes!

Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/125975-1ee5912c>  | Modify
<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=125975&id_secret=125975-23791a65>
Your Subscription | Unsubscribe
<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=125975&id_secret=125975-8f27
1c78&post_id=20111212111948:1AB27A42-24DD-11E1-934C-DD02DAE3A5B2> Now
<http://www.listbox.com> 	
!DSPAM:2676,4ee62ab4217011843118341! 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111213/a4590422/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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