[governance] Re: Can Icann really be necessary?

[David Allen]

The discussion has so far not highlighted other aspects of the Dan  
Gillmor piece in the Guardian - notably,

> [W]ho 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.
> ...
> 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 ...

The full text is below, as posted originally.  The link to the full  
post:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/23/icann-internet-domain-names

David
______
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110626/b8f56771/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