from a former icanner --more on ICANN's "ex-ex-ex" domains and the slippery slope

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Karl Auerbach <karl () cavebear com>
Date: June 2, 2005 5:08:47 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on ICANN's "ex-ex-ex" domains and the slippery  
slope
Reply-To: Karl Auerbach <karl () cavebear com>



On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, David Farber wrote:

I find ICANN's approval of .xxx to be, to put it bluntly, obscene.

ICANN has created a system in which top level domain allocations are  
few and far between - ICANN has created an artificial (and  
unwarranted) scarcity.

In light of this contrived scarcity, ICANN should be giving  
preference to TLD uses that are socially positive.  Instead ICANN has  
created a system in which priority is given to those who wish to  
profit from pornograpy.

Had ICANN created a system in which there was no artifical scarcity  
then it would, in my view, be appropriate to allow the pimps to  
establish a red-light district on the net, but *only* after those  
those who have socially constructive ideas had had their chance to  
obtain top level domains.

Way back in year 2000 ICANN accepted $2,400,000 from nearly 50  
applicants, many of whom had socially constructive and innovative  
ideas for new TLDs. ICANN chose a mere 7, most of which were among  
the least useful and innovative of the 50.  ICANN refused at least  
one application simply because one of the board members had trouble  
pronouncing the letters of the TLD!  ICANN has since told the  
remaining 40 applicants that their applications are still pending,  
neither approved nor disapproved.  In practical effect, given the  
many years that have elapsed, ICANN has expropriated those  
application fees and relegated the technically-still-pending  
applications to the rubbish heap.  Even Enron was not nearly so bold  
as ICANN in they way they took money.

That year 2000 action by ICANN, coupled with ICANN's overt preference  
for "sponsored" top level domains, particularly those from which  
ICANN can extract large fees, has made it clear that those who want  
establish innovative or socially beneficial, but financially thin,  
top level domains need not waste their time and money making a futile  
application.

Thus we have ICANN receiving applications only from those who have a  
well oiled pathway towards approval - one only has to look at the  
progress of the travel industry's .travel TLD to see how well  
lubricated a path ICANN can create for an application virtually no  
social value that comes from the right kind of applicant.

The net effect is that .xxx was the beneficiary of ICANN's policy of  
artifical scarcity coupled to ICANN's policy of preferences for the  
those applications from which ICANN can coerce revenue.

ICANN has gone so far off the rails that they can't even see the  
tracks with a telescope.

        --karl--


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/