- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Reminder: Submit comments to "The Role of Individual Internet Usersin the GNSO
by Danny Younger Nov. 17, 2008

Nov. 17, 2008

Re: "Individual users should be... able to choose which group they join." Why should individual users be forced into choosing an affiliation with either of these two groups? I operate a personal commercial website and I also operate a non-profit community website. My interests are both commercial and non-commercial and I have no difficulty switching to the appropriate hat as required. Individual users have a multiplicity of interests and should not be forced into these arbitrary commercial/noncommercial categories. What is needed is a separate stakeholders group for individuals.

1 0

Re: [At-Large] FW: My comments on new gTLDs and the role of ICANN
by Rajnesh D. Singh Nov. 14, 2008

Nov. 14, 2008

Sat Sri Akal, Parminder. How are things? Been a while since we caught up. Assume you are gearing up for IGF. I will be working out of Delhi for a couple of months from late November, so look forward to catching up at IGF, and later as well perhaps. Best wishes, Raj. Parminder wrote: > Congratulations, Vittorio, for an outstanding letter. We support both your > position on how a 'public forum' should be conducted, and the substantive > issue of the need for some pubic interest criteria to guide allotment of > gTLDs. > > My organization, IT for Change, during a workshop on CIRs governance > frameworks at IGF Rio had proposed a gTLD exclusively for public domain > content - .pd or .pdc (public domain content). > > Since, the default IP status of all content, where nothing to the contrary > is mentioned, is of 'all rights reserved', it will greatly be in public > interest to have an online space where this default is reversed (it could be > a part of domain taking arrangement). This will help all those who do not > have any IP attachments to their online interactions and the content they > may put out. From the 'real world' experience we know that this is true of > a very big part of our social interactions. > > This will reverse the un-necessary side-effect of using the virtual space > whereby every social interaction gets IP-ized, unless stated otherwise. > That, in our opinion, is not the natural state of our world, nor does it > represents the desire or interests of the majority. > > However, it is not possible to take this idea forward, for which we have > found very good support among many public interest groups, due to the 'entry > barrier' costs associated with GTLD allocation, with no public interest > considerations whatsoever. > > Parminder > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- >> bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola >> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 2:13 PM >> To: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> Subject: [At-Large] My comments on new gTLDs and the role of ICANN >> >> Since yesterday I could not make my comments at the Public Forum, I sent >> them by email to the Board, and I am publishing them here. >> ----- >> >> Dear Board of ICANN, >> >> as I was standing in line yesterday morning in the Public Forum, but due >> to prior commitments was not able to attend the "ad hoc" afternoon session >> to express my views, I am sending them directly to the Board, copying the >> Chairman, Vice-Chairman and ALAC Liaison so that at least one of them can >> forward my message to the Board list, and I will publish them somewhere >> for yesterday's audience. >> >> Before I get to my point of substance... I guess that several people >> already expressed their discomfort for what happened yesterday. However, >> please let me reiterate that the Public Forum, where the community and the >> Board discuss in plenary mode about the main topics of the moment, is one >> of the most fundamental elements of ICANN's legitimacy and accountability. >> Everyone knew since the beginning that at this meeting the Public Forum >> would have been crowded and well attended, and the decision to allot just >> one hour for it, then letting VIP speeches eat even more into it, is a >> terrible mistake. I urge the Board to make sure that there is ample time >> for Public Forums at every ICANN meeting - given that this situation >> happens often, I see a need for clear directions to staff by the Board. >> >> Now - I would like to comment as a wannabe applicant for a gTLD >> application which may or may not materialize, but that constitutes a good >> proof for the remaining flaws in an otherwise well thought-out draft RFP. >> Its main purpose is to save an ancient language and culture which have >> been existing in my part of Italy for about a thousand years, but which >> will disappear forever in twenty years or so, together with the elderly >> people that still embrace them, unless we can succeed in transitioning >> them to the Internet age. >> >> A small group of volunteers has been working pro bono for years to create >> online resources in this language - including, for example, a Wikipedia >> edition. The existence of a gTLD specifically devoted to that culture and >> language would make in our opinion a huge difference. It would boost the >> sense of identity and community, and provide a visible home to gather all >> efforts. However, this will clearly not be a business opportunity - it is >> imaginable that initially the gTLD would have just a few dozen >> registrations, which we would gladly give away for free through a >> non-profit vehicle. >> >> I think that what we would like to do is a deserving purpose, at least as >> good as yet another dot com clone, and possibly better than the abundant >> defensive registrations of any kind that we will see. To run a TLD with >> such a few registrations, there is no need for big staff and huge server >> farms - in fact, we are confident that we could get all the time, skills >> and technical resources as volunteer work and in-kind donations. However, >> even if we succeeded in this, we would still be facing an impossible task >> to raise $185'000 now and $75'000 each year just to pay ICANN fees, and we >> would likely score very badly against operational and financial criteria >> designed for multimillionaire global ventures. >> >> Yet, if you think that what we are trying to do is obsolete, amateurish or >> unimportant, please think again. This is the way all ccTLDs and gTLDs >> started prior to the ICANN era, and most of them have become pretty >> successful by now; actually, the only ones going for bankruptcy lie among >> those picked by ICANN through its carefully drafted RFP processes. This is >> actually the way almost every innovation happens over the Internet, still >> today. >> >> The Web? It wasn't invented by CERN, it was invented at CERN, by a couple >> of individuals, in their spare time, as a byproduct of their real job. >> Instant messaging? Peer to peer? Even innovations that overturned >> billionaire industries were invented by one or a few individuals with no >> money at all, or at most by small garage startups. What would happen to >> innovation if the IETF required $185'000 to submit a new Internet draft? >> >> I understand that there are costs attached to the establishment of a new >> TLD, though $185'000 per application, even in an expensive country like >> Italy, is enough to hire five or six people for one year for each >> application, and one wonders why do you need all that work; and $75'000 >> per year to keep a TLD in the root, where the work required in the absence >> of special events is literally zero, is plainly ridiculous. However, if >> you want to extract money from rich applicants going for remunerative >> global TLDs, or from big corporations with deep pockets trying to protect >> their brand, that's fine; but please don't make other uses impossible. >> >> There are several pricing structures that could address this issue: >> special prices for non-profit applicants, lower fees for TLDs that don't >> reach a minimum number of registrations, or panels in cooperation with >> appropriate organizations (say, UNESCO) to "bless" applications that have >> specific cultural or technological value. Several people have promised to >> submit practicable proposals in the next few weeks. But it is paramount >> that ICANN doesn't sell out the domain name space without putting in place >> features to address this issue. >> >> In the end, while applicants will be judged by the RFP, ICANN will be >> judged by the overall set of TLDs that it will add into the root. It may >> get 500 or more of them, but if 90% of them will be private corporate >> registrations, and the rest will be dot com clones with some kind of vague >> specialization, ICANN will have failed. >> >> But, looking also at other aspects, I am also afraid that the failure >> might end up being much deeper. ICANN is becoming a well managed business >> entity, through increased staffing and the introduction of corporate best >> practices. However, ICANN is not just a business entity - it is a strange >> beast with much more than that into it. What is optimal for a business >> corporation might actually make parts of the community feel not at home >> any more; and might make ICANN lose touch with its roots, with the nature >> and spirit of the Internet. If this happens, ICANN is doomed - all the >> governmental deals and business partnerships won't be enough to preserve >> its prestige and credibility. >> >> I see as one of the primary strategic roles of the Board that of ensuring >> that the decentralized, flat and free nature of the Internet is preserved, >> or at least not attacked, by the policies that ICANN adopts, and even that >> these policies contribute to, or at least do not stifle, the fulfillment >> of Millennium Development Goals and other worthy objectives in terms of >> development and human rights. These are not just high sounding words, they >> carry a meaning that must trickle down into everything ICANN does when it >> comes to policies. When you are tasked with a fundamental role in >> coordinating the Internet, there's more to life than business as usual. >> Please do not forget this. >> >> Thanks, >> -- >> vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >> --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> At-Large mailing list >> At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- >> lists.icann.org >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > -- Kind regards, Rajnesh D. Singh

1 0

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Nov. 14, 2008

Nov. 14, 2008

Total of 52 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Nov 14 00:53:03 EST 2008 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 13.46% | 7 | 10.61% | 61123 | vb at bertola.eu 9.62% | 5 | 13.14% | 75675 | namecritic at blogs.pn 9.62% | 5 | 11.32% | 65232 | isolatedn at gmail.com 3.85% | 2 | 10.91% | 62859 | dthompson at gov.nu.ca 5.77% | 3 | 7.98% | 45943 | parminder at itforchange.net 7.69% | 4 | 6.01% | 34640 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 5.77% | 3 | 6.23% | 35869 | jefsey at jefsey.com 3.85% | 2 | 4.23% | 24355 | baptista at publicroot.org 3.85% | 2 | 3.45% | 19889 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 3.85% | 2 | 3.34% | 19241 | ocl at gih.com 3.85% | 2 | 2.62% | 15099 | iza at anr.org 3.85% | 2 | 2.02% | 11611 | michele at blacknight.ie 3.85% | 2 | 1.98% | 11408 | johnl at iecc.com 1.92% | 1 | 3.26% | 18753 | roberto at icann.org 1.92% | 1 | 2.21% | 12739 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 1.92% | 1 | 1.94% | 11149 | nick.ashton-hart at icann.org 1.92% | 1 | 1.36% | 7857 | vanda at uol.com.br 1.92% | 1 | 1.26% | 7249 | narten at us.ibm.com 1.92% | 1 | 1.19% | 6856 | derek at aa419.org 1.92% | 1 | 1.07% | 6139 | andrespiazzagpj at hotmail.com 1.92% | 1 | 1.05% | 6077 | ross at tucows.com 1.92% | 1 | 1.01% | 5847 | joly at punkcast.com 1.92% | 1 | 0.93% | 5346 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 1.92% | 1 | 0.89% | 5121 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 52 |100.00% | 576077 | Total

1 0

Cut 1 host from net - 2/3 reduction in spam worldwide
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 14, 2008

Nov. 14, 2008

For those who may not have seen the reports, yesterday one web hosting service in California was largely cut off, resulting in an apparent 2/3 reduction in spam worldwide. No doubt they will relocate elsewhere quickly, but it is impressive nonetheless. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/11/spam_volumes_drop_by_2… or do a Google News search for "McColo". Alan

7 8

Re: [At-Large] FW: My comments on new gTLDs and the role of ICANN
by Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Nov. 14, 2008

Nov. 14, 2008

Hello Vittoria, Parminder, I deviate from the encouraging messages that you have received so far, because I think it gets a little complicated when a gTLD is thought of as desirable to promote every cause. When it comes to languages there is an estimated 3000 to 8000 languages spoken in planet earth Apart from languages there are several different causes - for example, the hearing disabled have a cause to ask to for a separate domain. Do we need a domain for every cause? Wouldn't it suffice if there is a collaborative website or a social network? What difference would it make if you opt to have a social network for your people in place of a gTLD? ICANN or any other organ in its place would find it far more complicated to manage a thousand gTLDs and IDNs due to such complications as IP issues, whether or not we agree with the concept of IP or not. And there are several complications that I have not thought about Aside from that,. Parminder's message to the list raises some interesting questions on ICANN's existing policies (without going into aspect of the correctness of the policy a gTLD can be reserved for a social group or a business entity as long as the applicant is willing to pay $185000 upfront and can commit to pay $75,000 a year.) and the limitations of it. The fee is prohibitive, I have my comments on that, but would move on to another dimension, not quite in tune with the discussions taking place on this thread. I fell that at-Large may even have to consider proposing a broader criteria for evaluation of gTLD and other domain applications. 'Ownership' of a gTLD implies a bit of power and status and the ownership of a gTLD in comparison with the ownership of a social networking portal offers the 'owner' a higher degree of credibility, real or perceived. If a gTLD is positioned as a domain for Governments, the prima facie perception is that the website is a government website, if it is positioned as a domain for academia, the prima facie perception is that it is the website of an academic institution etc. That is in general. Parminder's interesting idea talks about administrative such as a domain specific policy to reverse default arrangements such as "all rights reserved" or even technical possibilities such as a domain where the interactions are free of IP logging. Such possibilities make it more important to have a broader criteria for evaluation of the gTLD and other applications. A gTLD that says that is reserved to be a medium for free speech would attract such free speech that the regulators would hate, so the allocation needs to be made on the ability of the applicant to preserve such values. (Don't take this as any kind of comment on Parminder's proposal or as an argument against his overture. It is just that I am prompted to make a general comment triggered by the situation that he presented) What if there is a domain application for a .anonymizer domain that makes users believe that they are anonymous, but in reality a trap where users are even more thoroughly monitored ? Isn't that how most anonymous proxy servers work? Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 6:42 PM, Parminder <parminder(a)itforchange.net> wrote: > > > Congratulations, Vittorio, for an outstanding letter. We support both your > position on how a 'public forum' should be conducted, and the substantive > issue of the need for some pubic interest criteria to guide allotment of > gTLDs. > > My organization, IT for Change, during a workshop on CIRs governance > frameworks at IGF Rio had proposed a gTLD exclusively for public domain > content - .pd or .pdc (public domain content). > > Since, the default IP status of all content, where nothing to the contrary > is mentioned, is of 'all rights reserved', it will greatly be in public > interest to have an online space where this default is reversed (it could > be > a part of domain taking arrangement). This will help all those who do not > have any IP attachments to their online interactions and the content they > may put out. From the 'real world' experience we know that this is true of > a very big part of our social interactions. > > This will reverse the un-necessary side-effect of using the virtual space > whereby every social interaction gets IP-ized, unless stated otherwise. > That, in our opinion, is not the natural state of our world, nor does it > represents the desire or interests of the majority. > > However, it is not possible to take this idea forward, for which we have > found very good support among many public interest groups, due to the > 'entry > barrier' costs associated with GTLD allocation, with no public interest > considerations whatsoever. > > Parminder > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- > > bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola > > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 2:13 PM > > To: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > Subject: [At-Large] My comments on new gTLDs and the role of ICANN > > > > Since yesterday I could not make my comments at the Public Forum, I sent > > them by email to the Board, and I am publishing them here. > > ----- > > > > Dear Board of ICANN, > > > > as I was standing in line yesterday morning in the Public Forum, but due > > to prior commitments was not able to attend the "ad hoc" afternoon > session > > to express my views, I am sending them directly to the Board, copying the > > Chairman, Vice-Chairman and ALAC Liaison so that at least one of them can > > forward my message to the Board list, and I will publish them somewhere > > for yesterday's audience. > > > > Before I get to my point of substance... I guess that several people > > already expressed their discomfort for what happened yesterday. However, > > please let me reiterate that the Public Forum, where the community and > the > > Board discuss in plenary mode about the main topics of the moment, is one > > of the most fundamental elements of ICANN's legitimacy and > accountability. > > Everyone knew since the beginning that at this meeting the Public Forum > > would have been crowded and well attended, and the decision to allot just > > one hour for it, then letting VIP speeches eat even more into it, is a > > terrible mistake. I urge the Board to make sure that there is ample time > > for Public Forums at every ICANN meeting - given that this situation > > happens often, I see a need for clear directions to staff by the Board. > > > > Now - I would like to comment as a wannabe applicant for a gTLD > > application which may or may not materialize, but that constitutes a good > > proof for the remaining flaws in an otherwise well thought-out draft RFP. > > Its main purpose is to save an ancient language and culture which have > > been existing in my part of Italy for about a thousand years, but which > > will disappear forever in twenty years or so, together with the elderly > > people that still embrace them, unless we can succeed in transitioning > > them to the Internet age. > > > > A small group of volunteers has been working pro bono for years to create > > online resources in this language - including, for example, a Wikipedia > > edition. The existence of a gTLD specifically devoted to that culture and > > language would make in our opinion a huge difference. It would boost the > > sense of identity and community, and provide a visible home to gather all > > efforts. However, this will clearly not be a business opportunity - it is > > imaginable that initially the gTLD would have just a few dozen > > registrations, which we would gladly give away for free through a > > non-profit vehicle. > > > > I think that what we would like to do is a deserving purpose, at least as > > good as yet another dot com clone, and possibly better than the abundant > > defensive registrations of any kind that we will see. To run a TLD with > > such a few registrations, there is no need for big staff and huge server > > farms - in fact, we are confident that we could get all the time, skills > > and technical resources as volunteer work and in-kind donations. However, > > even if we succeeded in this, we would still be facing an impossible task > > to raise $185'000 now and $75'000 each year just to pay ICANN fees, and > we > > would likely score very badly against operational and financial criteria > > designed for multimillionaire global ventures. > > > > Yet, if you think that what we are trying to do is obsolete, amateurish > or > > unimportant, please think again. This is the way all ccTLDs and gTLDs > > started prior to the ICANN era, and most of them have become pretty > > successful by now; actually, the only ones going for bankruptcy lie among > > those picked by ICANN through its carefully drafted RFP processes. This > is > > actually the way almost every innovation happens over the Internet, still > > today. > > > > The Web? It wasn't invented by CERN, it was invented at CERN, by a couple > > of individuals, in their spare time, as a byproduct of their real job. > > Instant messaging? Peer to peer? Even innovations that overturned > > billionaire industries were invented by one or a few individuals with no > > money at all, or at most by small garage startups. What would happen to > > innovation if the IETF required $185'000 to submit a new Internet draft? > > > > I understand that there are costs attached to the establishment of a new > > TLD, though $185'000 per application, even in an expensive country like > > Italy, is enough to hire five or six people for one year for each > > application, and one wonders why do you need all that work; and $75'000 > > per year to keep a TLD in the root, where the work required in the > absence > > of special events is literally zero, is plainly ridiculous. However, if > > you want to extract money from rich applicants going for remunerative > > global TLDs, or from big corporations with deep pockets trying to protect > > their brand, that's fine; but please don't make other uses impossible. > > > > There are several pricing structures that could address this issue: > > special prices for non-profit applicants, lower fees for TLDs that don't > > reach a minimum number of registrations, or panels in cooperation with > > appropriate organizations (say, UNESCO) to "bless" applications that have > > specific cultural or technological value. Several people have promised to > > submit practicable proposals in the next few weeks. But it is paramount > > that ICANN doesn't sell out the domain name space without putting in > place > > features to address this issue. > > > > In the end, while applicants will be judged by the RFP, ICANN will be > > judged by the overall set of TLDs that it will add into the root. It may > > get 500 or more of them, but if 90% of them will be private corporate > > registrations, and the rest will be dot com clones with some kind of > vague > > specialization, ICANN will have failed. > > > > But, looking also at other aspects, I am also afraid that the failure > > might end up being much deeper. ICANN is becoming a well managed business > > entity, through increased staffing and the introduction of corporate best > > practices. However, ICANN is not just a business entity - it is a strange > > beast with much more than that into it. What is optimal for a business > > corporation might actually make parts of the community feel not at home > > any more; and might make ICANN lose touch with its roots, with the nature > > and spirit of the Internet. If this happens, ICANN is doomed - all the > > governmental deals and business partnerships won't be enough to preserve > > its prestige and credibility. > > > > I see as one of the primary strategic roles of the Board that of ensuring > > that the decentralized, flat and free nature of the Internet is > preserved, > > or at least not attacked, by the policies that ICANN adopts, and even > that > > these policies contribute to, or at least do not stifle, the fulfillment > > of Millennium Development Goals and other worthy objectives in terms of > > development and human rights. These are not just high sounding words, > they > > carry a meaning that must trickle down into everything ICANN does when it > > comes to policies. When you are tasked with a fundamental role in > > coordinating the Internet, there's more to life than business as usual. > > Please do not forget this. > > > > Thanks, > > -- > > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > At-Large mailing list > > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- > > lists.icann.org > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy

7 11

Knujon (was "Cut 1 host from net - 2/3 reduction in spam worldwide")
by WWWhatsup Nov. 13, 2008

Nov. 13, 2008

I've written to Knujon inviting Dr. Bruen to present in NYC if he is interested. I would webcast. joly At 08:53 AM 11/13/2008, you wrote: >On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu >> wrote: > >> >> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:05:49 +0200, Derek Smythe <derek(a)aa419.org> wrote: >> >> >> Just this past week Knujon's Dr. Robert Bruen traveled >> >> to an ICANN meeting to speak on behalf of us and the consumer but was >> >> told that his voice was unwanted. >> >> I was there and I attended Dr Bruen's presentation to the ALAC. ...It was >> very interesting and I personally regret it has not been given more >> publicity. >> > >Is there a transcript of his speech and / or slides ? > >Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Joly MacFie 212 608 1334 http://wwwhatsup.com http://punkcast.com http://pinstand.com

1 0

Charging Clients To Unlock Their Domains?
by Michele Neylon :: Blacknight Nov. 12, 2008

Nov. 12, 2008

I raised this issue with ICANN recently, but was informed that it's outside the scope of the RAA, though I'd feel that it was definitely within the spirit of the current transfer policies ... Irish clients are being charged MORE than the registration fee to move their domains elsewhere: http://bit.ly/r365 Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

1 0

My comments on new gTLDs and the role of ICANN
by Vittorio Bertola Nov. 9, 2008

Nov. 9, 2008

Since yesterday I could not make my comments at the Public Forum, I sent them by email to the Board, and I am publishing them here. ----- Dear Board of ICANN, as I was standing in line yesterday morning in the Public Forum, but due to prior commitments was not able to attend the "ad hoc" afternoon session to express my views, I am sending them directly to the Board, copying the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and ALAC Liaison so that at least one of them can forward my message to the Board list, and I will publish them somewhere for yesterday's audience. Before I get to my point of substance... I guess that several people already expressed their discomfort for what happened yesterday. However, please let me reiterate that the Public Forum, where the community and the Board discuss in plenary mode about the main topics of the moment, is one of the most fundamental elements of ICANN's legitimacy and accountability. Everyone knew since the beginning that at this meeting the Public Forum would have been crowded and well attended, and the decision to allot just one hour for it, then letting VIP speeches eat even more into it, is a terrible mistake. I urge the Board to make sure that there is ample time for Public Forums at every ICANN meeting - given that this situation happens often, I see a need for clear directions to staff by the Board. Now - I would like to comment as a wannabe applicant for a gTLD application which may or may not materialize, but that constitutes a good proof for the remaining flaws in an otherwise well thought-out draft RFP. Its main purpose is to save an ancient language and culture which have been existing in my part of Italy for about a thousand years, but which will disappear forever in twenty years or so, together with the elderly people that still embrace them, unless we can succeed in transitioning them to the Internet age. A small group of volunteers has been working pro bono for years to create online resources in this language - including, for example, a Wikipedia edition. The existence of a gTLD specifically devoted to that culture and language would make in our opinion a huge difference. It would boost the sense of identity and community, and provide a visible home to gather all efforts. However, this will clearly not be a business opportunity - it is imaginable that initially the gTLD would have just a few dozen registrations, which we would gladly give away for free through a non-profit vehicle. I think that what we would like to do is a deserving purpose, at least as good as yet another dot com clone, and possibly better than the abundant defensive registrations of any kind that we will see. To run a TLD with such a few registrations, there is no need for big staff and huge server farms - in fact, we are confident that we could get all the time, skills and technical resources as volunteer work and in-kind donations. However, even if we succeeded in this, we would still be facing an impossible task to raise $185'000 now and $75'000 each year just to pay ICANN fees, and we would likely score very badly against operational and financial criteria designed for multimillionaire global ventures. Yet, if you think that what we are trying to do is obsolete, amateurish or unimportant, please think again. This is the way all ccTLDs and gTLDs started prior to the ICANN era, and most of them have become pretty successful by now; actually, the only ones going for bankruptcy lie among those picked by ICANN through its carefully drafted RFP processes. This is actually the way almost every innovation happens over the Internet, still today. The Web? It wasn't invented by CERN, it was invented at CERN, by a couple of individuals, in their spare time, as a byproduct of their real job. Instant messaging? Peer to peer? Even innovations that overturned billionaire industries were invented by one or a few individuals with no money at all, or at most by small garage startups. What would happen to innovation if the IETF required $185'000 to submit a new Internet draft? I understand that there are costs attached to the establishment of a new TLD, though $185'000 per application, even in an expensive country like Italy, is enough to hire five or six people for one year for each application, and one wonders why do you need all that work; and $75'000 per year to keep a TLD in the root, where the work required in the absence of special events is literally zero, is plainly ridiculous. However, if you want to extract money from rich applicants going for remunerative global TLDs, or from big corporations with deep pockets trying to protect their brand, that's fine; but please don't make other uses impossible. There are several pricing structures that could address this issue: special prices for non-profit applicants, lower fees for TLDs that don't reach a minimum number of registrations, or panels in cooperation with appropriate organizations (say, UNESCO) to "bless" applications that have specific cultural or technological value. Several people have promised to submit practicable proposals in the next few weeks. But it is paramount that ICANN doesn't sell out the domain name space without putting in place features to address this issue. In the end, while applicants will be judged by the RFP, ICANN will be judged by the overall set of TLDs that it will add into the root. It may get 500 or more of them, but if 90% of them will be private corporate registrations, and the rest will be dot com clones with some kind of vague specialization, ICANN will have failed. But, looking also at other aspects, I am also afraid that the failure might end up being much deeper. ICANN is becoming a well managed business entity, through increased staffing and the introduction of corporate best practices. However, ICANN is not just a business entity - it is a strange beast with much more than that into it. What is optimal for a business corporation might actually make parts of the community feel not at home any more; and might make ICANN lose touch with its roots, with the nature and spirit of the Internet. If this happens, ICANN is doomed - all the governmental deals and business partnerships won't be enough to preserve its prestige and credibility. I see as one of the primary strategic roles of the Board that of ensuring that the decentralized, flat and free nature of the Internet is preserved, or at least not attacked, by the policies that ICANN adopts, and even that these policies contribute to, or at least do not stifle, the fulfillment of Millennium Development Goals and other worthy objectives in terms of development and human rights. These are not just high sounding words, they carry a meaning that must trickle down into everything ICANN does when it comes to policies. When you are tasked with a fundamental role in coordinating the Internet, there's more to life than business as usual. Please do not forget this. Thanks, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

8 13

Re: [At-Large] FW: My comments on new gTLDs and the role of ICANN
by John L Nov. 9, 2008

Nov. 9, 2008

> Have you really never heard of commercial/ economic constraints on free > speech/ expression? Well, there's the old saw that freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one. But to return to the prior question, do the commercial / economic constraints to which you refer include paying for your servers, networks, operations personnel, and the like? R's, John

1 0

Re: [At-Large] FW: My comments on new gTLDs and the role of ICANN
by John L Nov. 9, 2008

Nov. 9, 2008

> Firstly, I will like the sense in which you use 'free speech' clarified. I > do include freedom from commercial constraints as much has freedom from > political constraints in how I see 'free speech'. Hmmn. Do commercial constraints including paying for your servers, networks, operations personnel, and the like? Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.

2 1