[governance] new gTLDs

[parminder]

On Sunday 19 August 2012 10:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> *From:*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
>
> 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'.
>
> *//*
>
> */[Milton L Mueller] Nice rhetoric, but you are really ducking the 
> argument. I honestly think you don’t understand the issue here, /*
>
:) Typical 'Milton start' of an argument, which I will ignore. But you 
obviously think, I, US Congress's judicial committees, etc, no one 
really understand it, other than you ....

> */so let me try to explain more carefully. A TLD string must be 
> unique. Therefore it can only be assigned to one entity./*
>

Of course. This fact says nothing about the issue being discussed here - 
to whom is it assigned and why, and what all needs to be assigned at 
all, etc, of course in public interest, a term I think you have strongly 
contested in terms of ICANN's working/ decision making processes.

> */That entity, the registrant of, let’s say, .WORD, decides what 
> policies and practices determine what domains are registered under 
> .WORD./*
>

We have jumped the issue of how someone comes to be the registry and the 
registrant. While we will need to come back to that, isnt it true that 
there are existing constraints on registries and registrants regarding 
policies and practices under which domains are registered..... It is 
common to place such required restrictions in all sectors where licenses 
are issued for exclusive commercial use of public resources, and gltd 
names are such public resources allowed to be commercially exploited 
under licence, in a manner that serves public interest.

> *//*
>
> *//*
>
> */Tell me how you translate the idea that “common words (as domain 
> names) should be allowed to be freely used by all” into a specific 
> policy without violating the uniqueness and exclusivity constraint? /*
>

I have said this before. The main thing to do is; ensure that all gtlds 
are openly available in the market for anyone to register second level 
domains names under them. Secondarily, in some cases, it must also be 
watched what names are allocated to who..... Now, arent community names 
already a valid exclusion/ objection, and thus excluded from being 
awarded to just anyone, as you seem to want to be the universal 
rule..... One cant take .germany on a first come first served basis. 
Isnt it... are you against such exclusions too...

Further there may be terms that are not specifically community names but 
has certain association with certain, shall i say, groups.... like, I do 
think gtld names like .cricket, .football etc may need to have certain 
offline organisational correspondences.

Now,, .book, .beauty, etc may not be have specific communities around 
them, but there are strong cultural associations associated with them, 
that may, just may, need some consideration, even for them to be 'public 
gtlds'.. I am not wholly against they being allowed as open public gltds 
(as against private gtlds which the buyer can keep for exclusive private 
use) but some of these cases may need some thinking. But certainly they 
should not be allowed as private gtlds, as being allowed under the 
current process....

> *//*
>
> */“Internet governance” is a generic term, and yet, <horrors> we at 
> IGP have registered it under .org. And no, it cannot be freely used by 
> all. It’s ours. It is a domain administered by IGP, just as ‘IT’ and 
> ‘change’ are common words that your organization administers as its 
> private domain. Our registration of that generic term Internet 
> governance has not stopped dozens of other organizations having a 
> significant profile in the area – Diplo, IGC, etc. /*
>

Milton, you are speaking like a techie, for whom it is either this, or 
'only' that..... Socio-political thinking and practices do not come in 
such binaries... And you as a socio-political theorist know it, but dont 
mind employing such technical  binaries when they serve your 'minimalist 
governance' agenda.... Your entire argument here rests on the assumption 
that there is *no* practical difference between gltd names and second 
level domain names, when everyone knows that there is a world of 
difference between them. Yes, as being tied to a unitary technical 
architecture (although Louis Pouzin disagrees with even that), we are 
forced to make some choices, and allow some exclusivities, even when 
they are not fair... like someone setting a new IT start up may like the 
name IT for Change, and also the particular gtld .net but cant get it...

However, isnt  a multiplicity of gtlds (and more are proposed) precisely 
there to solve such a problem, or at least meliorate it. But, and you 
must answer this question, how does the issue of exclusivity implied for 
instance in a private gtld of .book get addressed, their being no higher 
level of domain name to provide competing field?

Unlike in mathematics, in politics, one small 'inconsistency' cannot be 
projected to the whole system level, with the claim if we have 'that' we 
as well may accept a fully screwed up system.... Politics is the art of 
the possible, carefully putting together imperfect parts into the best 
possible overall lot, or somewhere close about.

> *//*
>
> *//*
>
> */The only way to implement what you seem to be calling for is to set 
> up a “word authority” that a) defines which words will be generic or 
> common enough to be denied registration by any private actor; b) 
> imposes on these generic terms a specific set of policies regarding 
> how registrations are made./*
>

Well, in the other similar situation where exclusive uses of words is 
implicated, dont we have such authorities, the rhetoric of 'word 
authority' apart... and no one has objected, including yourself, as far 
as i know. Try registering a trade mark and you will know what all gets, 
to quote your word, 'denied registration by any private actor'. So you 
think such denials are wrong. I think they are mostly in public interest.

Now, if you can show that such 'denials' by trademark (TM) authorities 
are wrong, and unwarranted, which situation I consider as very close 
parallel of allocating gtld names, I will withdraw my case against 
private gtlds with generic names.

Making the parallel in the reverse direction, do you really think that 
TM authorities should be allocating all kinds of trademarks to anyone 
who applies 'on first come first served' basis (your proposition for 
allocating all kinds of gtlds), and allow hoarders to develop a 
secondary market in TM names (your preferred choice for all kinds of 
scarce public resources like IPv4 addresses).... Looks like a whole new 
paradigm of trademark regime... why not propose it to the world....


> */And that is what I mean when I say – with complete sincerity – that 
> you will end up advocating the control and regulation of these common 
> words. /*
>

You tell me, do the policies whereby TM authorities 'deny' 
indiscriminate registration of all kinds of words as TMs, cause control 
over use of common words, or prevent control over use of common words... 
Same is true with denying gtld names that must be denied in public 
interest. Do you think such denials by TM authorities constitute 
violation of FoE (an argument which I know would jump up any moment)

> *//*
>
> *//*
>
> */Suppose your Word Authority dictates that .BOOK must follow the same 
> open registration policy as now exists in .COM. Would that be “freely 
> used by all?”/*
>

As in socio-political situations there are no absolute binaries, so, 
yes, it will greatly increase such freedom.... we can pursue such 
matters only in degrees. Anyone can register a second level domain under 
.book, and it doesnt remain the exclusive preserve of Amazon, which is 
what is going to be if the present process goes forward.

> */No, even then, “open to all” will simply mean that second level 
> domains will be registered on a first-come, first-served basis..COM 
> and .ORG are open to any registrant, but that simply means that if I 
> register BOOK.COM or BOOK.ORG, I get to have this common word all to 
> myself at the second level. So to get what you seem to want, you would 
> have to impose an even more stringent collective governance regime on 
> how names are allocated and assigned within .BOOK. /*
>

Same binary logic.... It is the right thing that when second level 
domains are registered, which is what ordinary people and businesses do, 
and do in millions, anyone can more or less take any name, on first come 
first served basis..... Gltds are a very different ball game, although 
you want to keep equating logic across these levels. 'Private gtlds' are 
sought by a few, extremely big business, in fact near monopolies, whose 
rights to various kinds of second level domain names are already 
protected (also, additionally protected by ICANN IP related policies). 
What is the case for some of them to have whole gtlds to themselves... 
Whose freedom of expression are we really talking about here? For each 
private gtld taken by them, and its use kept from others, they 
substantially effect the rights of others to have domain names that they 
will like to have.... Is this not a simple and obvious logic...

On what basis, Milton, are you promoting the cause of some big 
businesses sitting over exclusive use of complete gtlds, using words 
that are common heritage, even without any trademark claim to such words?


> *//*
>
> *//*
>
> */If that is not correct please explain, in specific, implementable 
> terms, how you would do it differently./*
>

I have explained it above, in full implementable terms. But the first 
thing is, ICANN has to come out of its schizophrenia whether it does 
policy or not, it is a regulator or not.... It is just too confused 
about it, which, I think, is a major problem with it... It should admit 
that it makes political choices (policy) and enforces them (regulation). 
This denial and schizophrenia is a serious problem for a governance 
institutions, who is not able to decide what kind of governance work it 
does.... If such a thing were with an individual, he would be undergoing 
serious psychiatric treatment.

BTW, Milton, what have you to say about whether ICANN does policy and 
regulation or not?

parminder


> *//*
>
> *//*
>
> Even more ludicrous is your claim that "It is only a matter of time 
> before you join the trademark lobby in their never ending questto 
> ensure that politically approved true rights holders are allowed to 
> use specific words in specific ways "
>
> *//*
>
> */[Milton L Mueller] OK, I admit it, you will never “join the 
> trademark lobby”, but only because you would never be caught dead with 
> those corporate, commercial types. My point however, is that your 
> argument takes the exact same form and leads to the same kinds of 
> policies: some central authority has to control who registers every 
> name./*
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120820/235405ad/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