[governance] Can Icann really be necessary?

Imran Ahmed Shah ias_pk at yahoo.com
Sat Jun 25 14:25:34 EDT 2011 

Dear Asif
>Firstly, thank you to all for the contributions, I would like to support, Imran and Ivar point of view of the subject. 

Thanks for you support.

Would you please share your thoughts on the potential usage of new gTLD's and estimation about maximum number of domain names registered annually with gTLD of trademark/brand name specific.

(Keeping in mind that it is not a case of current ccTLD who allow the alternate usage e.g. .tv is being used as television channel).   

>This discuss(ion) must in long should focus on the key critical issues in Internet Governance, Again thanks.
Yes, I think this discussion is important because it is related to the Internet Community. A common user may be affected with negative or positive outcomes. We may focus mainly on the non-commercial name-space, however, little bit review on policy for the commercial ones to address the question that is this program prepared to accommodate richest organizations only?).


Thanks

Imran

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 19:34 PKT Asif Kabani wrote:

>Greetings All Friends,
>
>Firstly, thank you to all for the contributions, I would like to support,
>Imran and Ivar point of view of the subject. This discuss must in long
>should focus on the key critical issues in Internet Governance, Again thanks
>
>Asif Kabani
>Fellow, Diplo and IGF, Geneva
>Global Member, ISOC
>
>
>
>On 25 June 2011 16:34, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> 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<http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fcommentisfree%2Fcifamerica%2F2011%2Fjun%2F23%2Ficann-internet-domain-names&t=Can%20Icann%20really%20be%20necessary%3F%20%7C%20Dan%20Gillmor%20%7C%20Comment%20is%20free%20%7C%20guardian.co.uk&src=sp>
>>       -
>>       <http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fcommentisfree%2Fcifamerica%2F2011%2Fjun%2F23%2Ficann-internet-domain-names&title=> reddit
>>       this<http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fcommentisfree%2Fcifamerica%2F2011%2Fjun%2F23%2Ficann-internet-domain-names&title=>
>>    - Comments (27)<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/23/icann-internet-domain-names#start-of-comments>
>>
>>
>>    -  [image: Dan Gillmor] <http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/dangillmor>
>>    -
>>       -  Dan Gillmor <http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/dangillmor>
>>       - guardian.co.uk <http://www.guardian.co.uk/>, Thursday 23 June 2011
>>       18.00 BST
>>       - Article history<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/23/icann-internet-domain-names#history-link-box>
>>
>>  [image: icann vote]
>> 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<http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/20/internet-domain-wave-new-suffixes>
>> .
>>
>> That organisation is Icann: the Internet<http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/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<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains>,
>> 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<http://www.pcworld.com/article/222793/icann_approves_xxx_domain_for_adult_entertainment_industry.html>of the .xxx domain, intended to be a red-light zone for cyberspace. The
>> other, announced just this week<http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/20/icann-domains-expansion-annnounced>,
>> 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)<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/draft-icm-rationale-18mar11-en.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<http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-03-24/news/29181495_1_new-domain-internet-corporation-websites>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<http://business.avn.com/articles/technology/FSC-Launches-Anti-XXX-Campaign-Just-Say-NO-430172.html>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"<http://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137308306/not-just-dot-com-but-dot-yournamehere>.
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Asif Kabani
>Email: kabani.asif at gmail.com
>
>
>“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
>Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979

____________________________________________________________
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

More information about the Governance mailing list