Re: Direct From ICANN Paris Meeting: Surprise! The Money is What Matters!

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: Synthesis:Law and Technology Law and Technology [synthesis.law.and.technology () gmail com]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 3:51 PM
To: David Farber
Cc: ip; bob37-2 () bobf frankston com
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: Direct From ICANN Paris Meeting: Surprise! The Money is What Matters!

Dave,

"But the names are leased not owned."

For the names to be leased, they have to be owned by 'someone'.  It is certainly in the interest of registries and 
ICANN to assert ownership. Who can blame them? But how did they get to owning anything?  To assert ownership someone 
must find a way to define ownership of the internet.

I know this is a debate that has been played out before.  But there is a difference this time that I think is 
significant and bears mentioning.

If a very well known international company puts up a TLD in their name and there is a conflict down the line, rest 
assured that they will not hesitate to challenge the concept of ownership of 'their' name.  As usual people tend to 
confuse domains with Trademarks.  Trademark rights are devolved from legislation in a specific country.  What country 
can claim the right to hand out, lease or otherwise register TLDs?

So the bottom line is that IFit is decided that we need to keep the original mission of DNS as replacing hosts.txt file 
AND IF it is decided that the DNS is the best place for stable identifiers then there is no inherent bar to it.

Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec
J9B 1N1




On 6/26/08, David Farber <dave () farber net<mailto:dave () farber net>> wrote:

________________________________________
From: Bob Frankston [bob37-2 () bobf frankston com<mailto:bob37-2 () bobf frankston com>]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 3:17 PM
To: David Farber; 'ip'
Cc: 'Lauren Weinstein'
Subject: RE: [IP] Direct From ICANN Paris Meeting: Surprise! The Money is What Matters!

How could it have been otherwise? Any such organization will have stakeholders and it's even more the case when the 
process is self-reinforcing. If there were redeeming value we could deal with it but if the system exists mainly to 
perpetuate itself then we have a problem.


·         If we could use DNS names as stable identifiers then it would be in keeping with the original mission of 
replacing the /etc/hosts file with something more stable. But the names are leased not owned.


·         If it provided authoritative information it might serve a purpose but getting approved by a registrar means 
little. We have alternative vouching services we can choose to use for certificates instead.


·         If it was dealing with real scarcity it would be important but instead it creates scarcity by hording a 
supply of human-meaningful strings and can't even let us hold onto them.


·         If it didn't act as a gatekeeper for having a presence we might tolerate it.


·         If it were a directory service or acted as an effective registry like the trademark system we'd find value.


·         If it weren't a central dependency like any other telecom service we could embrace it being in the spirit of 
the Internet rather than as an interim hack.


·         If it didn't create real damage by being the basis for URI's and other identifiers we could tolerate it.


·         If it didn't assure that all links will go bad by default and get repurposed we could tolerate it.

But not only does it do none of the above – the extent to which we believe that it does any of them it preempts efforts 
to provide effective and sustainable solutions while lulling us into a false sense of security.

So of course it's about stakeholders.

I don't blame the original architects of the DNS – the failures only came to light over time. And I do appreciate that 
those who formed ICANN did so with the best of intentions. But over time the problems came to the fore and we found 
ourselves with a new commodity that could be monetized for the good of those who benefit from scarcity. Even then those 
who do may very well believe the DNS is necessary and the best we can do. It is not and it is not.





-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net<mailto:dave () farber net>]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 13:31
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Direct From ICANN Paris Meeting: Surprise! The Money is What Matters!





________________________________________

From: Lauren Weinstein [lauren () vortex com<mailto:lauren () vortex com>]

Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:15 PM

To: David Farber

Cc: lauren () vortex com<mailto:lauren () vortex com>

Subject: Direct From ICANN Paris Meeting: Surprise! The Money is What Matters!



    Direct From ICANN Paris Meeting: Surprise! The Money is What Matters!



                http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000394.html





Greetings.  Since my posting yesterday

( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000393.html ) expressing strong

distaste for ICANN's plans to vastly expand the global top-level

domain (gTLD) naming system, I've received some interesting analysis

and reports from the current Paris ICANN meeting itself.  They boil

down to one inescapable and extremely unfortunate fact.



ICANN has seemingly become dangerously beholden to moneyed

interests, and pretty much everyone else now gets short shrift -- to

the detriment of the Internet and its users at large.  I don't even

really blame ICANN's people and participants for this per se --

structural problems with ICANN, some reaching back to its

essentially ad hoc creation in the first place (and arguably to the

death of Internet pioneer Jon Postel) have essentially guaranteed

this state of affairs.



While there do appear to be attendees at the Paris meeting who are

concerned broadly about DNS stability under the new ICANN plan, the

vast bulk of attendees see the upcoming gTLD gold rush as yet

another way to line their pockets with greenbacks and euros -- the

vast majority of attendees are apparently registrars and registries

(and their minions) -- they know which side their bread is buttered

on.



Priorities at the meeting were reportedly set in the ICANN version

of the Twilight Zone.  While long-winded (and palpably boring)

monologues restating existing positions on squeezing money out of

new gTLDs took most of an afternoon, truly important issues like

IPv6 reportedly got barely five minutes.



One correspondent expressed to me his belief that the complicated

(and still incomplete in key respects) ICANN procedures would likely

keep us from being flooded with millions of new gTLDs overnight --

but implied (and I agree with this part completely) that voluminous

and expensive litigation by particularly aggressive and militant

applicants could result in literally any outcomes, however bizarre

and disruptive to the Internet and its users -- and the world at

large -- those outcomes may be.  I would add that this particular

correspondent took a much more upbeat stance in a public posting on

a major mailing list today -- leaving out most of the strong

misgivings and concerns that they expressed to me in private

e-mail.  I don't care to speculate on the reasons for this

discrepancy.



I was also blamed indirectly for the problems.  Participants in Paris

who bemoaned the current state of affairs regarding ICANN apparently

expressed some exasperation that interested parties (such as

myself) -- who are concerned about genuinely important Internet issues --

haven't actively participated in the ICANN process, attended the

meetings, and otherwise tried to alter the existing ICANN trajectory

into a sensible course.



Outside of the fact that many persons -- including me -- don't have

the resources to fly around the world to frequently exotic ICANN

meeting locales (at this stage, paying for gas just to get around

L.A. is a concern), there is another key factor at work.



With truly the greatest of respect for ICANN's hard-working people,

I still would suggest that many observers of ICANN feel that its

structural processes are broken in ways that cannot be significantly

influenced by persons with contrarian views vs. ICANN's existing

modus operandi.



Many of us believe that a dramatic change in "Internet governance"

is long overdue, and that this cannot be accomplished within the

existing structure of ICANN, despite ICANN's best efforts.  Such a

belief does not engender an obvious enthusiasm for spinning wheels

and fighting battles whose outcomes are usually predetermined.



However, I do have a few ideas for useful new gTLDs.  How about:



dot-shameful

dot-ripoff

dot-greed

dot -- oh, you get the idea.



When the most accurate way to predict the outcome of

controversial Internet technical issues is to employ the maxim

"Follow the Money!" -- well, to call it a sad state of affairs

is a supreme understatement.



--Lauren--

Lauren Weinstein

lauren () vortex com<mailto:lauren () vortex com> or lauren () pfir org<mailto:lauren () pfir org>

Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800

http://www.pfir.org/lauren

Co-Founder, PFIR

  - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org

Co-Founder, NNSquad

  - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org

Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com

Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy

Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com













-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com