[governance] Can Icann really be necessary?
Imran Ahmed Shah
ias_pk at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 27 10:33:57 EDT 2011
Dear Asif, thank you for sharing the some points and describing the history of
the development of TLDs.
>Finally, I have also put some reading material for friends whom are new and need
>to understand the history and future development, Imran put some light on your
>particular concerns after this email.
My concern is very simple that looking at the ICANN (organizational role) as a
big picture of Internet deployed globally with the slogan of One Internet, Every
One Connected, I would say that the focus of every new programs should be
beneficial for all kind of communities and should be open for the Global
Participation. In our dictionary equal opportunities should not mean that the
opportunities for a specific category who can proof their capabilities with
their wealth. The other Internet Community members, groups, organization who
have the Expertise, skill, knowledge, proficiency, creative minds, good ethics
but only due to lacking of wealth should not remain out. (This is not a campaign
for funding or financial support at all), my point is to facilitate all of the
categories of Internet Communities by a unique, informal and uniform polices,
which may deliver services on equal basis.
So, this is our duty, to suggest them through proper channel to form or mold
their current policies in favor of general participation.
ICANN listen through community feedback participation forum, and my request is
to develop a document for the same.
Do you have idea that what points should be included into that document, and
what should be subject of our discussion for this purpose.
Dear Fouad,
Would you please also share your comments as you are also one of the ICANN's
fellow who belongs to the Developing Countries.
1.How do you see this program and proposal of JSA WG, do you think that
developing economies would be able to participate in this program? For example
how may organizations from Pakistan?
2.What is your experience being ALS member and Al-Large Vice-Chair at ICANN that
how our proposal would be considered by the JSA WG and ICANN's Board as well?
Thanks & Best Regards
Imran Ahmed Shah
________________________________
From: Asif Kabani <kabani at isd-rc.org>
To: Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; ivarhartmann at gmail.com; imran at uisoc.org
Sent: Sun, 26 June, 2011 14:10:33
Subject: Re: [governance] Can Icann really be necessary?
Dear Imran and Friends,
The question raised by my Friends here is very relevant, I am here sharing some
9 points here to understand it better, remember
Still, the entire TLD process is complicated and difficult to understand. We’ve
been sucked down the rabbit hole of ICANN and the gTLD application process in
the past, and it isn’t something we recommend for the faint of heart.
We read (or at least skimmed) the 352-page New gTLD Applicant Guidebook [PDF] to
get to the bottom of what the gTLD process is, how much it costs, and
ultimately, why regular users should care.Finally, I have also put some reading
material for friends whom are new and need to understand the history and future
development, Imran put some light on your particular concerns after this email.
Again thanks & Regards
Asif Kabani
Historically, only 22 general use-approved TLDs, which include .com, .org, .net
and a host of others, have existed across the web. A number of country code
top-level domains (like .me and .ly) also exist and throughout the years, many
individuals not from those countries have used those domains to give their
domain or brand a more memorable (or in some cases, shorter) URL.
The promise of more generic TLDs is immense because it could conceivably open up
new domain extensions and opportunities for a wider variety of brands,
organizations and services.
1. How Many New TLDs Will Be Issued?
________________________________
ICANN has said between 300 and 1,000 new gTLDs could be created per year under
the new program.
Still, this number assumes ICANN can process and deal with that many
applications in a timely matter. Thousands of applications could take years to
evaluate and process.
ICANN says it is limiting the first batch to 500 applications and subsequent
batches — or rounds — will be limited to 400 applications.
________________________________
2. What Is the Application Period?
________________________________
Applications will be accepted for new TLDs between January 12, 2012 and April
12, 2012. This will be for the first round — or batch. Subsequent application
periods will become available in the future.
________________________________
3. How Much Will Registration Cost?
________________________________
The evaluation fee from prospective applicants is $185,000. According to
the gTLD Applicant Guidebook, a $5,000 deposit is required “at the time the user
requests an application slot within TAS, and a payment of the remaining $180,000
submitted with the full application.”
This is just to start the evaluation process. Additional fees may be required
during the course of the application review process, and this fee doesn’t
include additional infrastructure fees that a gTLD may generate.
________________________________
4. How Long Will the Evaluation Process Take?
________________________________
ICANN estimates that the evaluation process could be as short as nine months or
as long as twenty months, depending on the application, intended usage and other
issues.
ICANN expects the first new gTLDs to appear within the year, but it’s likely
going to be 2013 before end users see the new domains in action.
________________________________
5. What Happens if Two Entities Apply for the Same gTLD?
________________________________
It depends on the timeline. If one of the users has already completed process
before another party has applied, the TLD will be delegated on a first-come,
first-serve basis.
If neither applicant has completed the process, ICANN has a more detailed
resolution process in place. The applicants will be given points in four
different categories. The applicant that amasses the most points, based on this
set of criteria, will win the domain. In the even of a tie in points, an auction
will take place and the TLD will go to the highest bidder.
Additionally, community-based applications (that is, applications from an
organization or entity and not a specific brand or company) will have the
opportunity to have a priority evaluation in this process.
ICANN will notify applicants who are part of a contention set. Applicants can
decide to try to reach their own resolution together (for instance, a compromise
might be able to be reached for a more generic TLD like “soda” or “pizza”).
________________________________
6. What About Trademarks?
________________________________
This is going to be a very, very tricky situation for ICANN to mitigate.
Although users do not need to own a Trademark to apply for a new TLD, the
evaluation review will take any existing trademarks (from all over the world)
into account when looking at the application.
Users cannot “reserve” a TLD of a trademarked name, they must go through the
same process as everyone else. In addition to checking for trademarked names for
a TLD, ICANN will also look at similar names that may be trademarked or might be
confusing.
Additionally, trademark owners or other interested parties can file an objection
during the evaluation process.
________________________________
7. How Much Does Filing an Objection Cost?
________________________________
The Applicant Guidebook is still just a draft, so we don’t have the final
figures; but it will cost the thousands of dollars to file an objection — not
including any additional mediation or court costs.
One of the reasons that ICANN is charging so much for its evaluation fees is
that it is doing lots of due diligence to try to settle the feasibility of a TLD
before granting it to an organization. Moreover, ICANN wants to prevent domain
squatters from grabbing TLDs.
________________________________
8. If I Get a New TLD, Do I Have to Let My Competitors Use It?
________________________________
Once a new TLD is granted, the owner essentially becomes a registrar. That means
that if he or she wants to let anyone willing to pay a registration fee get
their own domain on that TLD, they can. Alternatively, the owner could limit the
use of the domain to certain entities or prevent people without certain
qualifications from gaining access to the TLD.
________________________________
9. Will This Have Any Real Impact on My Life as a Web User or a Brand?
________________________________
Not in the immediate future. However, it’s important to remember that it
took years for the current TLD structure to become a viable and affordable
strategy for individuals and non-Fortune 100 companies.
Twenty years ago, it wasn’t common for brands, small businesses or individuals
to have their own domains. Today, a staggering number of registrars exist. It
took a long time for the TLD market as we know it today to really start to open
up.
I bought my first domain name in 1999, I think I paid $45 for registration that
first year. Prior to 1995 or so, domain registration was a multi-hundred or
multi-thousand dollar investment. I now pay $8 or $9 for a .com or .net domain,
and that includes private registration.
It will take time for the process and oversight aspect of the new gTLD policies
to be worked out and automated. However, we expect that community-driven TLDs
for things like .music, .sports and .film become more available in the future.
Yes, actually owning a customized TLD, like .google or .apple or .facebook might
be something that only large corporations or government entities can afford to
do, but with time, we expect that even that process will start to change, just
as they did in the .com and .net space.
On 25 June 2011 23:25, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> wrote:
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
>>>s
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
>
--
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110627/9b071a14/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list