[governance] new gTLDs
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Aug 18 03:28:20 EDT 2012
On Saturday 18 August 2012 12:06 PM, parminder wrote:
> Milton
>
> You know that this a debate over higher level principles/issues, so we
> can have a discussion on them if you want.
Milton
One of the most problematic characteristics of the online ecology and
its influence on our societies is the unprecedented globally
monopolistic possibilities and positions that are shaping up.... Google
tells us that it will organise the world's knowledge for us, Facebook
positions itself as 'the' world's online interacting place, Twitter as
'the' world's instant distributed media, Microsoft as 'the' document,
itunes as 'the' music store................
This is very unprecedented. Such a thing has never happened before. And
many people consider it very dangerous (including adherents of the
original Adam Smith's creed of a 'really' free market). It threatens all
kinds of rights of the people.... for the first time, monopoly
corporates are seeking to represent and service entire aspects of our
social living, and social systems, and in the process, insidiously,
increasingly determine these aspects.
In any earlier time, any such monopoly would have been nipped in the
bud. We all know the exemplary role of US regulatory authorities that
made both, first the telecom, and then the software, revolutions
possible. However, today, we face a unique structural problem of
national regulatory efforts not being able to be effective vis a vis an
inherently global phenomenon of the Internet. The one jurisdiction that
still has enough political leverage - the US - will not do what is
needed to be done becuase it plans to ride its digital behemoths to
continued and increased global domination.... And so, we are struck in a
fix, of monumental historic and socio-political significance....
This is the framing of the original problem that many share. Now, if you
have no sympathy at all with it, there is no point in us moving forward
to the specific issue of new gtlds..... If at all, we have to discuss
the above framing, and its basis.
However, in the unlikely case that you do have some sympathy for the
above framing, then the issue is that:
We should realise that the new round of gltds is more about private
gtlds than new public gtlds, which as, McTim claims, are necessary to
increase the competitiveness of the gltd market. Or even if we agree the
new process is separately about both -*the critique here refers ONLY to
private gtlds, that its owners are under no obligation to sell second
level domain names in the open market as was obligatory for instance for
.com and other existing gtlds.*
We all know that google, apple and amazon are not seeking to enter
domain name business. They are trying to buy gltds to buttress their
respective businesses. So, we need to see what they are planning to do,
and whether it serves public interest.
Going back to the original framing of unprecendented monopolies in the
digital age that seek to represent and service entire aspects of our
social living/ systems, which we may (or may not) agree is a 'problem',
what better for these monopolies than to get exclusive rights to key
terms of the language representing key civilisational ideas/ concepts,
like .book, .beauty, .love, .school, .music, .film, .document and so on.
It simply and directly buttresses their already problematic monopolistic
positioning vis a vis our private and public social lives, something
many of us do not want to get corporatized as it is on the anvil of
being. That is the goldmine that google et all see in the sale of
private gltds.
Also, in an reverse impact, as these corporates already dealing with the
idea/ concept that is embodied in the linguistic term being claimed, as
Loreal with .beauty, Amazon with .book, etc, they begin to strongly
influence, and then to some extent determine, cultural connotations of
these terms, of course in a manner tuned to their narrow commercial
advantages (and to hell, with the social impact). And this is no science
fiction stuff - we all know that big brands already seek to do it, and
often do it rather successfully. Therefore, of course, such nefarious
designs will not get instituted for the first time with private gtlds -
the question is, *how much push would private gtlds give to such designs
and efforts, how much a new class of clear and substantial advantage do
they bring to such problematic efforts.* How does this problem vis a vis
pulbic interest weigh against any specific benefit of having private
gltds at all (about which I havent heard much in the present debate).
It is in this background that we have to assess the public interest
implications of new gtlds..... But if you think all this is pure humbug,
well, then, that is were we stand. But please dont accuse other people
of 'not thinking deeply'. Maybe it is the social depth of your thinking
that is in question :).
parminder
> Meanwhile, your smart alec stuff serves little purpose. Neither, the
> rhetoric of attacking positions that make you feel good, which
> positions you know I never hold; like, your claim that I am on the
> side of 'people who want to control and regulate the use of common
> word in order to ensure that they are used "properly" or "fairly""
>
> When, if I am saying anything at all, I am saying that common words
> should be allowed to be freely used by all, and not inappropriately
> pushed into private domains, which is a form of 'control' over the
> use of those 'common words'. Therefore, who is on the side of control
> over common words (and implicated FoE) and who against is perhaps
> opposite of how you would want to show it to be.
>
> Even more ludicrous is your claim that "It is only a matter of time
> before you join the trademark lobby in their never ending quest
>
> to ensure that politically approved true rights holders are allowed to
> use specific words in specific ways "
>
>
> When you know that what I am trying to say, and also my general
> politics, is quite the opposite. The main burden of my original
> proposition is, in fact, that (replacing 'politically' in your
> statement with 'commercially', while it is obvious that you see 'red'
> with anything political, while all kinds of commercial controls simply
> pass you by.)
>
> with the new gltd process "'commercially' approved true rights
> holders are allowed to use specific words in specific ways" like
> the word .book......
>
> (Yes, .book will be used as a word, dot book, connoting that in the
> online environment 'this' is exclusively what book is. A major, unfair
> and unnecessary advantage to any private actor. )
>
> Obviously, you are allowing your rhetoric to get better of you.....
> Anyway, I will point to the larger principles and socio-economic and
> political issues that are behind our present discussion in a separate
> email...parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Friday 17 August 2012 11:30 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder
>>
>> I am honoured to agree with the US Congressional judicial committee
>>
>> ØI knew this would happen, eventually. Good for Parminder for being
>> consistent…..even if consistently wrong.
>>
>> ØFor a different perspective, see
>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/08/16/us-congress-joins-saudi-arabia-in-net-censorship-extravaganza/
>>
>>
>> I especially agree that ICANN has done practically nothing to get
>> *informed* comments from outside the largely compliant ICANN
>> community on an issue that implicates just everyone, who deals with
>> language and ideas that is.
>>
>> ØI think we've gotten 13 years of comments many of them quite well
>> informed,
>>
>> Øand anyway how is ICANN supposed to control the intelligence or
>> informational
>>
>> Ølevels of the people who write into an open, public comment board?
>>
>> ØHave you looked over the comments on TLD applications? they are
>> astoundingly diverse.
>>
>> ØMost of them are stupid, but they are not from the ICANN stalwarts
>>
>> ØThat's democracy, bub
>>
>>
>> By it I mean a public-place from where our commonly owned words (with
>> all the cultural significances they hold) like love, kid, book,
>> school etc cannot be plucked out and handed over to some business
>> houses as private property.
>>
>> ØThis is where you are not thinking very deeply. If these words are
>> indeed 'commonly owned' they can be appropriated and used by anyone.
>>
>> ØSince domain name registrations must be exclusive, and since your
>> claim to a dns registration of a common word is as good as mine, it
>> is just a matter of first come first served.
>>
>> ØIt is the people who want to control and regulate the use of common
>> words
>>
>> Ø- in order to ensure that they are used "properly" or "fairly" -
>>
>> Øwho actually would usher in a crippling political battle over who
>> has the right to the name, and how it canbe used
>>
>> Øwhich would stifle the development of the name space. I am still
>> waiting for you Parminder to
>>
>> Øget acquainted with the idea of "permissionless innovation," which
>> is why the Internet flourished.
>>
>> ØYou want people to ask for permission and impose collective
>> regulation before they can use the word 'book'.
>>
>> ØI say to hell with that.
>>
>> ØIt is only a matter of time before you join the trademark lobby in
>> their never ending quest to
>>
>> Øensure that politically approved true rights holders are allowed to
>> use specific words in specific ways
>>
>>
>> When 'trademarks' allow exclusive rights over some words to some
>> private parties in very clearly limited contexts, and with so many
>> pre-conditions, caveats etc, how can a private body simply hand over
>> the *globally* exclusive use of generic words, with no trademark
>> claim to them either, to private parties just on the highest bid !!?
>>
>> Øthey are not handing over the right to globally exclusive use of the
>> word.
>>
>> ØThey are handing over the right to globally exclusive use of a
>> specific character string as a top level domain
>>
>> ØYou can use the word 'book' all you like. There, I just did it:
>> book, book, book.
>>
>> ØI can name my website http://www.syr.edu/book/
>>
>> ØI can paint "book" on the side of my car, or tattoo it on my forehead
>>
>> ØI can try to register 'book' in any of the hundreds of new TLDs that
>> will exist if you and the TM lobby don't stop it
>>
>> ØI can open a book store, online or offline, and attract
>> google-driven searches on the word 'book' there if people link to it
>>
>> ØEtc.
>>
>> ØEtc.
>>
>> Just think of the scenario when Amazon owns .book,
>>
>> ØCheck this out: www.book.com <http://www.book.com>
>>
>> ØCheck this out: http://www.book.co.uk/
>>
>> Ø
>>
>> and mind you, it is to be fully private. Unlike existing registries
>> like .com etc amazon will not even be obliged to sell second level
>> domain names under .book in the public market (protecting the
>> marketplace, huh!). Quite soon, amazon may change its name, or at
>> least its book division's name to .book... It will have a right to,
>> since it owns that particular symbol in a very special way.....
>> Remember, normal trademark etc law wont allow it to run its business
>> under the name 'book', because it will be considered too generic a
>> name, meaning it is pubic property (those good old times when laws
>> were made to protect the public!). But with an expedient routed
>> through the ICANN- that benefactor of the powerful, Amazon can run
>> its business under .book, the ownership of which is 'established, or
>> would certainly get established over due course of use as everyone
>> will know, of course .book is amazon (and vice versa), are you
>> kidding or what!
>>
>> I am sure with some proven use and exclusivity, trademark authorities
>> will also be compliant... As the world, especially in the use of
>> language, goes mostly digital, we hand over our common property, the
>> idea and the word, 'book', to a private company.... and then it is
>> the turn of 'kid', 'love', 'cloud', .baby, .book, .eat, .family,
>> .film, .home, .movie, .music, .search, .beauty, .school................
>> I am completely lost as to what public interest does all this serve?
>> Isnt ICANN there to serve public interest! Why couldnt we stick to
>> relatively meaningless three alphabet gtlds like .com, .org and such,
>> and, being most important, making it incumbent upon the registries to
>> sell second level domains in the open market on a non discriminatory
>> basis?? Why has ICANN taken upon itself to further privatise anything
>> and everything that conceivably can be privatised and perpetual rents
>> extracted for the benefit of the most powerful, in the true spirit of
>> the resplendent neoliberal march.
>>
>> I really hope those outside the wunderworld of ICANN would take this
>> issue up in the right earnest.. I suspect, the storm would start
>> brewing soon. I cant see how ICANN, and its compliant ICANN
>> community, will be allowed to get away with this absolute loot of our
>> common cultural heritage. I think this time ICANN has bitten off too
>> much.....
>>
>>
>> parminder
>>
>> On Wednesday 15 August 2012 02:39 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> FYI
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/8-7-12%20Letter%20from%20Senate%20and%20House%20Judiciary%20Committees.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> wolfgang
>>
>>
>>
>> -->
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120818/7ce60138/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/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