[governance] who owns the new gTLDs?

[McTim]

Hi Riaz,

I can't parse any of your replies below, so I won't try to reply.

Instead, as an exercise in capacity building, I will try to answer the
original question (who owns the new gTLDs?) posed in this thread.

The answer is that no one "owns" them.  Domain names are delegated to
registrants.  It's more like a "lease" than "ownership".   This is the
case for multiple and single-roots.  It also describes the situation
for numbering resources more adequately than ownership.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel







On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2013/03/05 03:34 PM, McTim wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:48 AM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> CA
>>>
>>> I rather like it because it sounds like McTim is for specialisation in
>>> comparative advantage, as they use at the WTO - ACTA, NAFTA, etc -
>>
>>
>> Sounds like you are trying to put words into my mouth ...again!
>
>
> "sounds like" if I were to locate your comment theoretically.
>
>
>>
>>
>> so it has
>>>
>>> the virtue of consistency. And also locates me, as a wannabe heterodox
>>> economist, in relation to what I discern as the market orientated McTim
>>
>> In truth, I think that CIRs (names and numbers) should be available
>> based on a cost recovery basis.  However, that horse left the barn
>> some decades ago in the names world, and the numbering horse seems to
>> be charging for the door like its tail is on fire at the moment.
>
>
> See is an ought, then perhaps an oligopolistic or monopolistic analysis then
> would be more appropriate? 'Defending' the status quo or a market
> orientation would require some caveats because of the objective control CIR
> institutions exert directly or indirectly.
>
>
>>
>> (I
>>>
>>> have to be careful because it seems like economic categorisations on this
>>> list are rather casually and oft inappropriately used
>>
>>
>> like you have done once again in this mail ;-/
>
>
> See first response.
>
> I'll bide my time, I think I am onto something. But always happy to be
> surprised. After all, follow the market is quite a revolutionary idea, and I
> did not take you for one of those. The market can take you up the dotcom
> curve, to a resounding splat... and of course, if we include network effects
> and first mover advantages, then even the concept of a market based approach
> presumes a position on these uncompetitive advantages... after all if prices
> are not RIGHT, how can the market function on such signals...
>
>
>>
>>
>> , a matter I would like
>>>
>>> to avoid, since it is better to keep shut and be thought a fool than to
>>> open
>>> one's mouth and leave no doubt).
>>>
>>> The internet may be universal, but its institutional infrastructure, at
>>> CIR,
>>> is pretty much US based.
>>
>> Except for the 4 RIRs NOT based in the USA (and the 10's of thousands
>> of LIRs that are their members), the 192 ccTLDs NOT based in the USA,
>> the AfTLD, LACTLD, etc, etc.
>
>
> And the applicable law, and powers of recall to delegations?
>
>
>> ICANN is setting up real HQ hubs in Turkey and Singapore, there is a
>> real push to internationalize the organisation.  Why would we demonise
>> and oppose this? We should celebrate it, as it is exactly what we have
>> been asking for!
>
>
> is and ought, sets and venn diagrams. I am not part of your 'we'.
>
>>
>> <nonsense snipped>
>
>
> Some peoples garbage are others treasure. Nice to have the dialectic. My
> nonsense asserts that market orientation underrates the inherently political
> character of these arrangements that serve dominant interests. I can see why
> we must differ.
>
>
>>
>>> Now this argument may seem like a stretch, but theoretical felicity
>>> requires
>>> *intrasystemically* that the 'market' be characterised by large numbers
>>> of
>>> producers who are price takers, a case that is not the case in many
>>> levels
>>> of the CIR - which suffers from state 'interference'. And this is
>>> relevant
>>> because of the way the pragmatic (or ad hoc) deviations from the
>>> theoretical
>>> values basis, for instance inclusion of public interest clauses, are
>>> needed
>>> as comparators of the accomodation made. This is McTs pragmatism and
>>> realism. Which intimates he is more a neoliberal than a neoclassical;
>>> avoiding of course the entire point between philosophy and ideology and
>>> the
>>> relative merits of both which leave un-practical or un-technical people
>>> at a
>>> disadvantage. Of course one need not point out that too technical or
>>> natural
>>> science a view tends toward denying the fact that there is no objective
>>> Archimedean point in matters social.
>>>
>>> In short, a market orientated approach is idealistic in its conception of
>>> the CIR and Internet as a market
>>
>> There are multiple markets that make up the Internet, even within the
>> categories of CIRs.  To deny this is to deny reality.  I don't see
>> your point here.
>
>
> Control and power - see point above about political construction of markets.
> Simple. The analogy you make here would be called in mainstream economic
> terms 'shadow prices' (if one were to dispense with monopoly/oligopoly as
> above). These markets are political constructions even if delegated with
> some autonomy.
>
>
>>
>>
>>   (confusing what is with what ought), and
>>>
>>> fails on its own terms. But as we see it has traction because these types
>>> of
>>> ideas are pragmatically mercantalist for those who currently hold the
>>> advantages.
>>>
>> How would you adjust the situation?  Today there is a meeting in Addis
>> of the African folks involved in ICANN/DNS industry trying to build
>> more interest in the DNS ecosystem in Africa.  I welcome this
>> initiative.  ICANN is spending many millions of USD on Outreach and
>> Engagement.  Would you prefer they don't?
>>
> Ah the appearance of what is the alternative. Unlike Reagan and Thatcher who
> implied there is no alternative TINA, there are hundreds of alternatives.
> ICANN et al will do whatever they do, as they must. To wit, In 1985 in South
> Africa the apartheid government gave representation to Indians and Coloured
> in South Africa to boost their race credentials. Did not help in terms of
> race legitimacy. Then we also have to deal with how the ICANN system looks
> after its own... with its troops of single rooters etc ever ready to push a
> line defending the status quo with some ad hoc changes. So technically it
> may be good, I can concede that, no institution is completely one thing or
> another.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>

-------------- 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