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

[Imran Ahmed Shah]

translate google  On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 3:12 PM PKT michael gurstein wrote:  >---------- 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!
____________________________________________________________
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