ICANN: Pay Now, Maybe Get a New Top-Level Domain Later

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Karl Auerbach <karl () cavebear com>
Date: November 2, 2009 12:44:58 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] ICANN: Pay Now, Maybe Get a New Top-Level Domain Later
Reply-To: karl () cavebear com

On 11/02/2009 03:28 AM, David Farber wrote:

> From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>

> Subject: [ NNSquad ] ICANN: Pay Now, Maybe Get a New Top-Level  
> Domain Later

> ... I feel that generally speaking, the
> current focus on more generic/global TLDs is a virtually total waste
> of resources...

While I agree with Lauren that nearly every one of the huge number of  
people and organizations that want a TLD of their own could do what  
they want under a name under an existing TLD.  And much disappointment  
is in store to those those believe that if they can get a TLD that  
they will somehow be the grantee of the kind of gift that the US and  
ICANN gave to Verisign.

But there is a much larger issue.

The issue is this:  Who set us up as petty gods to say what the  
internet shall be or shall not be?

There is no doubt that ICANN is itself a very heavy regulatory body.  
However, even the ICANN policy glacier moves.  What Lauren suggests is  
immobility and redlines part of the internet as off-limits even for  
completely lawful activities.

Freedom requires that we allow people room to do things that we might  
consider a waste of time and effort, even frivolous.

Several years ago I came up with this formulation of what I consider  
the proper way to evaluate the balance between use and constraint on  
the net:

>  First Law of the Internet
>
> + Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is
>  privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental.
>
>   - The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who
>     wish to prevent the private use.
>
>       - Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing  
> evidence
>         of public detriment.
>
>   - The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to  
> justify
>     the suppression of the private activity.

http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000059.html

                --karl--









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