All, as you might have noticed, .xxx is coming up again, and is under discussion in the community and in the Board. I see more or less two positions - one says that .xxx would just be a "money printing machine" for ICM (the registry), and most registrations would just be defensive ones, to prevent your name from being associated to adult content, so it's better not to create it; the other one says that ICANN should just create TLDs and let the market determine whether they are successful or not, so let's create it. In addition, we know that many governments will be very upset if .xxx is created, partly for moral reasons, partly for the risk that their countries and places are associated with porn; on the other hand, I could imagine that ICM would sue ICANN if it doesn't get the domain. As a committee, do we have an opinion? I would recommend that we release a brief statement on the matter in the next couple of weeks, so that I can bring it to the Board. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
On the money printing machine argument, this is an argument in favor of no new generic TLDs at all. I don't see it as unique to .XXX. In the GNSO's new TLD task force, we've heard this time and time again from the intellectual property and business constituencies. They only want sponsored TLDs, like .JOBS and .MUSEUM, because they feel compelled to register their names defensively in TLDs like .INFO and .BIZ. And keep in mind that commercial registries are in the business of making money. If you don't create new registries and new TLDs to enter the market, you're just keeping the money printing press at Verisign. It's not as though we're going to make the registration business non-commercial by keeping out new players. On the government aspect, I think the Board should not speculate on the way governments might react. The Board should only take account of what is part of the public record. If governments want to formally object and send their concerns to the Board via letter, either individually or via the GAC, then it would be appropriate to address those concerns. If the Board is getting feedback through the back channel, then it should encourage those speakers to make a formal statement that can be part of the formal record. I also think it's important to remember that, by and large, the representatives of the GAC are mid-level beaurocrats who do not stay in their respective positions very long. They may not actually speak for the government when they are speaking off the record. If you really want to know what the government of Freedonia thinks, then you need to ask Freedonia to make a statement on the record. Bret
Just pushing the issue again - if we want to be heard on this, we need to come up with a statement in a not too long timeframe, definitely before Lisbon. Specifically: Bret Fausett ha scritto:
On the money printing machine argument, this is an argument in favor of no new generic TLDs at all. I don't see it as unique to .XXX.
No, the point is that if you had a TLD that is useful to someone (as any other TLD that was created, basically), then defensive registrations would be a price that we collectively have to pay to get more names available out there. But if the TLD is not wanted by its own community (and it seems unlikely that adult webmasters are actually going to move into it, just to be filtered out more easily), then what you're left with is a TLD that more or less only contains defensive registrations and pay-per-click sites, and that is a nonsense to me. OTOH, I think that defensive registrations are a silly method to protect one's brand, as it doesn't scale, and moreover it helps create scarcity of good names - so it's time that ICANN discourages it and ensures that there are effective methods to act ex post, rather than being concerned about how to help it. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
ICANN should not be in the business of evaluating strings, period. It should publish technical criteria and minimally evaluate whether a registry fulfills those. Some trademark holders will argue against new TLDs, but then they'd also argue against learning new languages, lest they have to "police" their marks in those too. --Wendy At 04:16 AM 1/30/2007, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
Just pushing the issue again - if we want to be heard on this, we need to come up with a statement in a not too long timeframe, definitely before Lisbon.
Specifically:
Bret Fausett ha scritto:
On the money printing machine argument, this is an argument in favor of no new generic TLDs at all. I don't see it as unique to .XXX.
No, the point is that if you had a TLD that is useful to someone (as any other TLD that was created, basically), then defensive registrations would be a price that we collectively have to pay to get more names available out there. But if the TLD is not wanted by its own community (and it seems unlikely that adult webmasters are actually going to move into it, just to be filtered out more easily), then what you're left with is a TLD that more or less only contains defensive registrations and pay-per-click sites, and that is a nonsense to me.
OTOH, I think that defensive registrations are a silly method to protect one's brand, as it doesn't scale, and moreover it helps create scarcity of good names - so it's time that ICANN discourages it and ensures that there are effective methods to act ex post, rather than being concerned about how to help it. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <--------
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
I've noticed that some ICANN Committees and Supporting Organizations are already setting up their schedules and agendas for Lisbon. Recalling our chronic scheduling problems at ICANN meetings, I suggest that we get to this as soon as possible and fix our meeting times at next week's telephone conference. Siavash ------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah@irnic.ir, shahshah@nic.ir -----------------------------------------------
Just FYI, there will be three sets of At-Large community meetings in Lisbon to consider: 1) ALAC Committee meetings 2) African RALO Meetings 3) European RALO Meetings Which will all need to be coordinated. On 30/01/07, At Large Advisory Committee <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
I've noticed that some ICANN Committees and Supporting Organizations are already setting up their schedules and agendas for Lisbon. Recalling our chronic scheduling problems at ICANN meetings, I suggest that we get to this as soon as possible and fix our meeting times at next week's telephone conference. Siavash ------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah@irnic.ir, shahshah@nic.ir -----------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
-- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart FESTIVE GREETINGS! As per usual, in lieu of cards for friends and colleagues, I have made a donation in your name to Medecins Sans Frontieres, to help them provide medical care to those much less fortunate than ourselves.
I agree with Wendy. Make no mistake about this, the opposition to the .xxx TLD is very much related to the larger effort to regulate content. ICANN should not show favour in any way to this campaign but stick to its core competence. Furthermore, my reflexive libertarian streak respecting what I read or view has determined that I am unalterably opposed to any attempt by ICANN to regulate content. For as a consenting adult, it is simply none of anybodys business what I deem useful content for my own use, much less a global multistakeholder organization! I am yet willing to concede that we have a duty of care to protect the young and probably, the weak-minded. But not even these should be considered as ICANNs responsibility. Carlton [Spanish Version] Concuerdo con Wendy. No haga error acerca de esto, la oposición al .xxx TLD es tanto relacionado al esfuerzo más grande regular el contenido. ICANN no debe mostrar el favor en ninguna manera a esta campaña pero al palo a su competencia del centro. Además, mi rayo libertario reflexiva que respeta lo que leí o veo ha determinado que soy opuesto inalterablemente a cualquier tentativa por ICANN para regular el contenido. ¡Para como una persona de edad para consentir, es simplemente ninguno de cualquiera el negocio lo que creo útil contenido para mi propio uso, mucho menos una organización "global de multistakeholder"! Soy mas dispuesto a conceder que tenemos un deber del cuidado para proteger a los jóvenes y probablemente, el débil tiene inconveniente en. Pero ni eso debe ser considerado como responsabilidad de ICANN. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: lac-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:lac-als-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of At Large Advisory Committee Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:40 AM To: Vittorio Bertola Cc: 'Interim ALAC' Subject: Re: [LAC-ALS] [ALAC] .xxx ICANN should not be in the business of evaluating strings, period. It should publish technical criteria and minimally evaluate whether a registry fulfills those. Some trademark holders will argue against new TLDs, but then they'd also argue against learning new languages, lest they have to "police" their marks in those too. --Wendy At 04:16 AM 1/30/2007, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
Just pushing the issue again - if we want to be heard on this, we need
to come up with a statement in a not too long timeframe, definitely
before Lisbon.
Specifically:
Bret Fausett ha scritto:
On the money printing machine argument, this is an argument in favor of no
new generic TLDs at all. I don't see it as unique to .XXX.
No, the point is that if you had a TLD that is useful to someone (as any
other TLD that was created, basically), then defensive registrations
would be a price that we collectively have to pay to get more names
available out there. But if the TLD is not wanted by its own community
(and it seems unlikely that adult webmasters are actually going to move
into it, just to be filtered out more easily), then what you're left
with is a TLD that more or less only contains defensive registrations
and pay-per-click sites, and that is a nonsense to me.
OTOH, I think that defensive registrations are a silly method to protect
one's brand, as it doesn't scale, and moreover it helps create scarcity
of good names - so it's time that ICANN discourages it and ensures that
there are effective methods to act ex post, rather than being concerned
about how to help it.
--
vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <--------
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org _______________________________________________ LAC-ALS mailing list LAC-ALS@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-als_atlarge-lists.icann. org
[Something seems wrong with the mailing lists.] Vittorio, my 2 (euro)cents: I quite agree with Wendy. ICANN is in the business of making the DNS system stable and secure. It has no role in monitoring the content, nor what is being done with a TLD, as long as the stability and security of the DNS system can be guaranteed. ICANN should not evaluate a business plan either. The only guarantee it could ask is that the TLD is being run for the whole duration of the contract. Whether the porn industry supports triple x or not is irrelevant, as long as ICM registry can securely run the TLD. Remember, Jon Postel wanted to create hundreds on new TLDs back in 1998. This is the plan we should encourage ICANN to follow. Patrick Vittorio Bertola wrote, On 30/01/2007 10:16:
Just pushing the issue again - if we want to be heard on this, we need to come up with a statement in a not too long timeframe, definitely before Lisbon.
Specifically:
Bret Fausett ha scritto:
On the money printing machine argument, this is an argument in favor of no new generic TLDs at all. I don't see it as unique to .XXX.
No, the point is that if you had a TLD that is useful to someone (as any other TLD that was created, basically), then defensive registrations would be a price that we collectively have to pay to get more names available out there. But if the TLD is not wanted by its own community (and it seems unlikely that adult webmasters are actually going to move into it, just to be filtered out more easily), then what you're left with is a TLD that more or less only contains defensive registrations and pay-per-click sites, and that is a nonsense to me.
OTOH, I think that defensive registrations are a silly method to protect one's brand, as it doesn't scale, and moreover it helps create scarcity of good names - so it's time that ICANN discourages it and ensures that there are effective methods to act ex post, rather than being concerned about how to help it.
I agree with Wendy and Patrick José Ovidio Salgueiro A. jsalgueiro@cantv.net ----- Original Message ----- From: At Large Advisory Committee To: Vittorio Bertola Cc: 'Interim ALAC' ; euro-als@atlarge-lists.icann.org Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:05 AM Subject: Re: [LAC-ALS] [ALAC] [EURO-ALS] .xxx [Something seems wrong with the mailing lists.] Vittorio, my 2 (euro)cents: I quite agree with Wendy. ICANN is in the business of making the DNS system stable and secure. It has no role in monitoring the content, nor what is being done with a TLD, as long as the stability and security of the DNS system can be guaranteed. ICANN should not evaluate a business plan either. The only guarantee it could ask is that the TLD is being run for the whole duration of the contract. Whether the porn industry supports triple x or not is irrelevant, as long as ICM registry can securely run the TLD. Remember, Jon Postel wanted to create hundreds on new TLDs back in 1998. This is the plan we should encourage ICANN to follow. Patrick Vittorio Bertola wrote, On 30/01/2007 10:16:
Just pushing the issue again - if we want to be heard on this, we need to come up with a statement in a not too long timeframe, definitely before Lisbon.
Specifically:
Bret Fausett ha scritto:
On the money printing machine argument, this is an argument in favor of no new generic TLDs at all. I don't see it as unique to .XXX.
No, the point is that if you had a TLD that is useful to someone (as any other TLD that was created, basically), then defensive registrations would be a price that we collectively have to pay to get more names available out there. But if the TLD is not wanted by its own community (and it seems unlikely that adult webmasters are actually going to move into it, just to be filtered out more easily), then what you're left with is a TLD that more or less only contains defensive registrations and pay-per-click sites, and that is a nonsense to me.
OTOH, I think that defensive registrations are a silly method to protect one's brand, as it doesn't scale, and moreover it helps create scarcity of good names - so it's time that ICANN discourages it and ensures that there are effective methods to act ex post, rather than being concerned about how to help it.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org _______________________________________________ LAC-ALS mailing list LAC-ALS@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-als_atlarge-lists.icann....
I think ICANN should look at the business plan and any other related document in the only goal to ensure that the company will be able to run the registry successfully. I think it is the role of ICANN to ensure that the operations are sound initially. I have seen it happened with a ccTLD. I would also add, and I'm not sure it happens, that ICANN should request status report yearly to registries: BS & PL, Domain registration and deregistration statistics.. These reports would be public. ICANN will always have to restrict the scope of which gTLDs are potentially available, but the policy should be done before hand than on a case by case basis. ex. No offensive language instead of forbidding dot fuck when it happens. On 1/31/07, At Large Advisory Committee <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
[Something seems wrong with the mailing lists.]
Vittorio,
my 2 (euro)cents:
I quite agree with Wendy. ICANN is in the business of making the DNS system stable and secure. It has no role in monitoring the content, nor what is being done with a TLD, as long as the stability and security of the DNS system can be guaranteed. ICANN should not evaluate a business plan either. The only guarantee it could ask is that the TLD is being run for the whole duration of the contract.
Whether the porn industry supports triple x or not is irrelevant, as long as ICM registry can securely run the TLD. Remember, Jon Postel wanted to create hundreds on new TLDs back in 1998. This is the plan we should encourage ICANN to follow.
Patrick
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Franck Martin franck.martin@gmail.com "Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question" G. Bachelard
participants (6)
-
At Large Advisory Committee -
Bret Fausett -
Carlton A Samuels -
Franck Martin -
José Ovidio Salgueiro A. -
Vittorio Bertola