[governance] Can Icann really be necessary?

[Imran Ahmed Shah]

Dear(s) Ivar, Coordinators and all IGC CS Members,
In fact ICANN has become an organization on which the Internet Community depends 
on.
Referred article seems the biased response.
 
>I don't agree with all of the arguments stated, but I find it is good that 
>there's social pressure for the app fee to be lower. This way, when it can be 
>lowered (if ever), it's guaranteed we'll have some forces (including in CS) 
>pushing for that.
 
However, as you asked for the influence of the Civil Society for the reduction 
of the Application fee to new gTLDs. It’s a good Idea to invite the CS support, 
however, this is a forum of Multi Stakeholders’ and Application fee does not 
matter for those members who may belongs to or representing to the big 
profitable companies, like VeriSign, IBM, Apple, Microsoft, Nokia, Sony, Yahoo 
or Google etc. who would be ready to pay any cost to reserve the namespace that 
may represent their Trademark or Brand Name more better.
 
Even after getting the new gTLD registry as the namespace of their brands, who 
will allow others to register the second level domain name? for example 
“anything.ibm”, “other-OS-is-better.microsoft”, excellent-brand-is-apple.ibm or 
even igc-cs.verisign or hotels.varisign? Even if they allow only to the relevant 
business partners or clients, imagine what will be the cost per domain (just to 
adjust the recovery of the expenses + huge application fee)? Comparing the 
existing example to today that anyone can register .com .net with $6.99 to $35 
and ccTLDs from $9 to $120. After all this cost will be transferred to the end 
users.
 
So, do you think its uniform policy to facilitate the Internet Community members 
or common internet user or just to facilitate the International brands owners 
for their own commercial business growth?
 
So, we have to work hard and quick to oppose or extended support ICANN’s JSA WG 
proposal submitted to the ICANN’s board for the discount offer of 76% (of 
$186,000) for the developing economies. None of the non-for-profit (and not 
supported with huge-funding) organization belonging to developing countries is 
capable to pay US$44K + Registry Setup+ Insurance Guarantees+ Hiring Technical 
Resources.
 
I would suggest creating a new discussion thread and inviting CS Support through 
a relevant subject for example:
 
i.        “Campaign to reduce gTLD Application Fee for Non-Commercial 
namespace”, or
ii.       “Categorize Commercial and Non-Commercial gTLDs”, or
iii        “Let the DE participate in new gTLD Program”     DE=Developing 
Economies
 
If you agree to do this, we can share some thoughts and experience and being a 
member of IGC Strategy WG, I vote and request to develop a common IGC strategy 
to support your idea with condenses. Subject title modification is being 
proposed to bring more people into the information sharing and to invite inter 
CS comments to work together and for a greater positive influence to a common 
initiative.

Your prompt reply and review comments will be highly appreciated.

Thanking you 

Regards

Imran Ahmed Shah
Founder & Executive Member
Urdu Internet Society (UISoc)
Internet Governance of Pakistan (IGFPAK)
email: imran at uisoc.org
Cell: +92-300-4130617



________________________________
From: Ivar A. M. Hartmann <ivarhartmann at gmail.com>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Sat, 25 June, 2011 3:57:08
Subject: [governance] Can Icann really be necessary?

Some people don't really understand what it means to "be accountable to everyone 
and no one" =)
I don't agree with all of the arguments stated, but I find it is good that 
there's social pressure for the app fee to be lower. This way, when it can be 
lowered (if ever), it's guaranteed we'll have some forces (including in CS) 
pushing for that. 

Best, Ivar


(via Berkman Buzz)

Can Icann really be necessary?
It's a question worth asking as the body that oversees internet domain names 
will now permit any suffix you want – at a price
	* 	* 

	* Share12 
	*   reddit this  
	* Comments (27) 
	*   
	* 	* Dan Gillmor 
	* guardian.co.uk,			 																		 				            Thursday 23 June 2011 
18.00 BST 

	* Article history
 
Icann board members vote in a plan to expand the number of possible domain 
endings, currently limited to just 22. Photograph: Roslan Rahman/AFP/Getty 
Images
Are you ready for .xxx, .coke and .insertyournamehere? You'd better get ready, 
because an organisation with significant authority and scant accountability says 
you must.
That organisation is Icann: the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 
Numbers. It supervises the naming system for internet domains. With a budget 
north of $60m, Icann's board members and staff – who strike me as well-meaning, 
if too often unwise, in their actions – have embedded their work into the DNA of 
modern cyberspace. One would expect no less from an enterprise that can 
essentially tax the internet and is simultaneously accountable to everyone and 
no one. 

Like Icann's operations, its rules are complex. The organisation's key role, 
boiled down to the basics, is to oversee the domain name system (DNS) – a role 
that gives Icann the authority to decide what new domain-name suffixes may 
exist, and who can sell and administer them. The best known "top level" domain 
suffixes, at least in the US, are .com, .org and .edu; they are among 22 generic 
suffixes, along with about 250 country-level domains such as .uk, (United 
Kingdom), .de (Germany) .and cn (China). 

Two recent Icann initiatives highlight its reach. The first was the approval 
earlier this year of the .xxx domain, intended to be a red-light zone for 
cyberspace. The other, announced just this week, is a plan to let people and 
enterprises create domain names of any kind – for example, .Apple or .CocaCola 
or .treehugger – reflecting their trademarks or specific interests. 

Contrary to Icann's rationalisations (pdf), .xxx is a terrible idea. Should it 
succeed, it will enrich its promoters. But it will also likely lead, should the 
domain actually be adopted widely, to widespread censorship and manipulation. 
Governments are keen to restrict access to what they consider to be pornography 
or block it altogether; look for laws requiring adult sites to use the .xxx 
domain, so they can be more easily fenced in – or out. India has already 
announced it will block .xxx entirely.
I hope this wretched move fails for practical reasons. Adult content providers 
possessing common sense will hesitate to move their operations into a 
censor-friendly zone of this kind. Indeed, the Free Speech Coalition, an adult 
entertainment trade group, is urging its members to boycott .xxx and stick with 
the tried and true .com suffix that most of them already use.
The success of .com helps explain why the latest Icann move, expanding the 
domain system in potentially infinite ways, is at best problematic. It's not 
entirely misguided, however. In principle, the idea is inoffensive; why not have 
internet addresses that fully match reality and might (repeat: might) be more 
secure under certain circumstances? And why would a company with a valuable 
trademark not want to reserve a domain suffix reflecting its trademark? 

Because, as noted, the current system isn't all that broken. Trademark disputes 
already get resolved in the .com world with laws and rules of various kinds. So, 
who wins by inviting every enterprise with a trademark or valuable name to 
register with multiple domain suffixes? The registrars win, of course, and so 
does the organisation that decides who can be a registrar; that would be Icann, 
which, in effect, taxes the registrars based on how many people they sign up for 
domains.
Speaking of fees, if you want one of the new domain suffixes and are not a 
wealthy individual or company, get ready to put a major dent in your bank 
balance. The Icann application alone will be $185,000, with an annual fee of 
$25,000. Who sets this fee? Why, Icann, of course. Is it reasonable? Icann says 
it is. Why is it reasonable? Because Icann says, based on evidence that is less 
than persuasive, that it needs the money for things like legal costs. So much 
for small business registrations, much less domains for individuals with 
relatively common last names – how about .JohnSmithWhoWasBornInDallasOnMay51983? 
– which want to be as unique in their domain name as they are in the real world.
Esther Dyson, former board chair at Icann (and a friend), told NPR she 
considered the new domains "a useless market". She is right, but I'd go further: 
Icann itself is unneeded, or should be made to be so. Clearly, it would be 
unworkable to simply pull the plug on Icann, because it has become a key link in 
the digital chain. But the internet community should be working on a bypass, not 
controlled in any way by governments, that is both secure and robust.
A partial bypass already exists for end users. It's called Google – though this 
also applies to Bing and other search engines. Internet users are learning that 
it's easier, almost always with better results, to type the name of the 
enterprise they're searching for into the browser's search bar than to guess at 
a domain name and type that guess into the address bar. Google isn't the DNS, 
but its method suggests new approaches. To that end, some technologists have 
suggested creating a DNS overlay, operated in a peer-to-peer way that 
incorporates modern search techniques and other tools. Making this workable and 
secure would be far from trivial, but it's worth the effort.
A few years ago, I was a candidate for a post on the Icann board. During an 
interview, I was asked to describe what I hoped to achieve, should I be asked to 
serve. A major goal, I replied, was to find ways to make Icann less necessary. 
My service was not required.--
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/23/icann-internet-domain-names
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110625/59569f17/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