[governance] Can Icann really be necessary?

[Imran Ahmed Shah]

Correction of typo error:

> To support your idea with condenses.
Please read it as:

To support your idea with consensus.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:34 PKT Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:

>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
____________________________________________________________
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