On 15 June 2012 15:10, Bret Fausett <bfausett@internet.law.pro> wrote:
If Amazon makes domain names available under .SMILE, it will own all the second-level registrations. This certainly makes whois accuracy easy. Amazon will be your one point of contact for everything. I certainly expect that this will make life easier for law enforcement. If Amazon decides to make .SMILE names available to its users, they will use them solely at Amazon's pleasure under Amazon's terms of service.
So why is this suddenly a problem because it is Amazon behind it? I had heard numerous complaints from people that purchased a hosting service that came with a "free" domain name -- only to find out later that ownership of the domain remained with the hosting company and wouldn't be ported to any other hosting service. You were beholden to that hosting company, that owned the name and allowed its use it only so long as you hosted with them. If you left for another hosting service, they would not only hang onto the domain but had the potential to offer it to a competitor of yours who hosted with them. All nicely legit, buried in the click-through Terms and Conditions. There are other, murkier instances in which a web developer does the name registration and holds the client hostage to it, trying to have a job for life (or big payout). I see the scenario you paint above as no different, except that the awareness that the domain doesn't belong to you between is known up-front. As for "easier for law enforcement", I see that as simply a negatively-tainted euphemism for "more transparent". I would argue that highly distributed assets like we have under the current
registration model provide more power and long-term stability to users who want to have ownership interests in their Internet assets.
Well, yes, compared to *one* scenario painted by just one of the applications. But arguably the status quo serves the needs of those who crave such power, and the new models may serve those who don't. In any case, I'm concerned by any blanket warnings about the newcomers based on one extreme example. So now we may have a more diverse group of registration spaces, with highly
distributed open models competing with single-registrant, highly controlled models.
... and hybrids of the two, which I see coming from the likes of Microsoft and Google and perhaps others yet-unknown. Let's not describe the whole field in terms of its two extremes.
But the new model is like trading home ownership for a tenancy in an apartment building.
As stated above, there are already examples of "domain tenancy" under the status quo, most notably in name/hosting bundles, and they have existed without concern by ICANN or the industry. So I'm not sure why there's suddenly concern about that now.
Nevertheless, I hope you, and the rest of the ALAC, give the newcomers the same scrutiny you give to the applicants from the registration industry.
Well, the newcomers have the goodwill advantage of not having shouted us down at meetings, blocked policies advancing the public interest, or refused members of the public entry into ICANN-funded meetings and "open" negotiations. In this respect, a clean slate is probably a benefit. Having said that, I don't expect that At-Large and ALAC will stop serving the public interest just because of the new entrants. - Evan