Hi Parminder, Comments inline On 11 October 2012 10:28, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
I am not sure whether a gTLD review group does exist at present, and proposes to do something, or not.
Well, it does exist, but so far it has yet to receive any comments that meet the criteria for escalation to an ALAC formal objection as defined in the applicantion process. Yours -- amongst others -- was considered and rejected for reasons that I believe were clearly and adequately stated. Now, whether the issues you raised are ripe for discussion in the broader ALAC new-gTLD working group -- the one Avri chairs -- is still pending. Should the debate move there I welcome the opportunity for a spirited rebuttal to most of your assertions, along the lines of my original response to your letter.
Although [Avri] did clarify a few days back, there are new arguments on the list against continued examination of this issue.
Not quite. It is certainly possible to further discuss this issue as a ongoing potential ALAC concern. But the process of soliciting comments, in mind of making formal application objections, is very specific and now past its due date. There were two separate strings of response: - Whether the comments received weresuitable, and within scope, to escalate into a potential formal ALAC objection (That was what the Review Team, led by Dev, was supposed to evaluate) - Whether the points raised, on a more general level, should be considered on their merits for consideration as ALAC policy advice (that is within the realm of the working group that Avri chairs)
I hear voices here claiming that the time for fighting for this cause is over now.
Some causes are still worth fighting. Some were decided within the last year, and some many decades ago. While it is certainly possible to revisit any position, it's an unfortunate fact that ICANN has pointed the domain-name infrastructure in directions that are, at both philosophical and practical levels, impossible to reverse. The doctrine that a domain name is a commodity rather than an identity is IMO a particularly and fundamentally unfortunate path, but that argument is long ago lost and impossible to win back without starting from scratch. (And I ironically, I believe that some of the "private" domains that cause concern to some are the best chance for a disruptive reboot in that direction).
Some of those who say so otherwise seem to have sympathy for the proposition that 'private gTLDs' will be detrimental to public interest.
I certainly hope I'm not counted amongst the "some" mentioned there. I have long been of the opinion that the gTLD expansion process is detrimental to the public interest -- private, public, the lot of them. There is some good in having new TLDs in scripts other than Latin, but beyond that the entire expansion program claims to solve a problem -- by making it worse. The communiqué from the first At-Large Summit describes the gTLD expansion program as "unacceptable", and that the problems it identified at that time went largely unanswered. (I would also note that the position stated above was never formally withdrawn, and assert that most of At-Large's activities in this realm have been in the form of damage-mitigation.) It's my position that the gTLD program as a whole is poorly advised, against the public interest and will ultimately fail -- but since it's going ahead anyway, I will defend the emergence of "private" TLDs as, indeed, the silver lining within this cloud, They offer the only potential for public benefit (outside of IDNs) to be found within the expansion. Note, I said "potential". The private TLDs could fail us too. But we already know that the model used by the "public" ones have already failed both end-users and legitimate providers of Internet content and services. There appears to be an overly greater desire to safeguard a process (ICANN
?) than address the substantive issue on its merits,
As I said above, there are two separate issues -- the immediate one regarding the objection process, and the larger one to be debated on the merits. The immediate one is over, so we're left to address the issue on its merits, as you wish. There was never any intent to shy away from your assertions -- on the contrary, I'm eager to confront them.
especially when, in my view, the implications of the issue at stake are huge. In private conversations I find people, even among those centrally connected to ICANN, having varying degree of reservations about 'private gTLDs'.
To the extent that the domain industry -- fearful to protect the position it has carefully built -- has worked to manufacture public opinion, you're right. Indeed, this will get worse before it gets better. But merely having such reservations does not mean that they are well-founded or indeed based on any fact. The domain industry has itself tried to protect its private interests by re-framing the issue as one of "public interest", and too many have fallen for the bait. Such fear-mongering will eventually attract the appropriate rebuttal, but not before making a lot of noise.
As I read postings on this list I see a similar sentiment. Outside the ICANN circles of course I find almost universal dismay that such a thing can be done.
Funny, nobody expressed such hand-wringing when the words "museum", "name" and "cat" were locked away some years ago. It seems that there is only dismay when the words being fretted upon are considered to have significant monetary value. Why so much whinging about L'Oreal wanting the ".beauty" TLD, while nobody has ever complained about the monopolization of "beauty.com" by an online drugstore? Is the difference fundamental, or only one of degree? Have L'Oreal, other beauty companies, or the public interest suffered because of lack of direct third-party access to beauty,com? How does it serve the public interest that "beauty.co.in" is locked away by a speculator, presently unusable by *any* information provider? Let's face some reality: The private right to control a common-language word, by having enough money and/or being first to get it, has been a founding philosophy of ICANN. It would be impossible to reject that without complete re-invention of ICANN (*"That would be just fine with us", says the ITU.*) Second reality: *All* TLDs are private. You can't outright buy any domain name, you can only rent it. Stop paying after the expiry date and someone else -- maybe even a competitor -- gets your domain. Even at the top level, each TLD registry has to pay an annual rental fee to ICANN else they lose it. In this world, nobody owns anything except temporary rights (with the partial exception of trademark holders). Even ICANN's own franchise is granted by fixed-term contract and can be taken away. In this context, the main difference between so-called "private" and "public" TLDs is only in the manner of distribution; determining who gets what. In "public" TLDs the determinations of who gets what are money and trademarks; it is in the public interest to see how other distribution models might work. What would be necessarily wrong with an *option* (remember, there will be hundreds of "open" alternatives) of domain allocation under a benign authority? "Private" TLDs offer the potential to circumvent and disrupt the conventional distribution chain, which is why the domain industry is fighting against them. I would suggest caution when conflating their vested interests with the public's.
I wonder, then, what kind of governance process can still be going ahead with possibly allowing 'private gTLDs' and how so many of the civil society participants in ICANN processes prefer to stand on ceremony rather than agree to have a thorough debate on and (re)consideration of the issue.
There is no hiding behind process going on here. Some of our timing is governed by the processes set in place by others. There was a specific matter about ALAC's ability to launch formal objections about specific applications. Your comment did not meet the rigid requirements to be escalated as a potential formal objection. That time-sensitive part is over and done with. But the ALAC has the bylaw-mandated freedom to comment on any issue at any time. If you believe, going forward, that there is valid reason for ALAC to advance the domain industry's fears of disruption as a matter of public interest, then I and others are happy to engage. So far, what I've heard has been unconvincing. 1) Again I haven't read most generic name private gTLD applications Sigh. - Evan