Re: [At-Large] FW: My comments on new gTLDs and the role of ICANN
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@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 2:13 PM To: at-large@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@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Hello All, I have read a little somewhere on the issues raised in the thread, and have learnt a little more, to add the following: It is harder to run a TLD than it appears on the surface. Vittorio's commitment to preserve a dying language is to be applauded, but is a TLD the only solution? Is it difficult to achieve what is intended with a lower-hierarchy solution, like an SLD or lower, or even simply a portal? Such a solution would cost less and can go up online even faster than the complex solution of a dedicated gTLD. In addition to the general comments on my previous response in this thread, here are some specific comments and questions, this time, pointed directly at Parminder. It appears that the underlying idea of Parminder's domain for "public domain content" is to promote free flow of knowledge by enabling a non-copyright culture and the idea of establishing it as a domain where IP addresses are NOT logged appears to be that of promoting free speech. Why would free flow of knowledge be confined to a specific gTLD? Why not in .com, .in and .org or even in .gov ? There are several tools such as the Creative Commons license available to achieve that Universally - rather than promote this universally why move to confine freedom to a specific TLD? If the idea is to keep an entire TLD open for those who are oppressed and are in need of space for free speech, a TLD isn't right, because EVERYTHING that is free can be filtered out with one stroke - block this TLD, and everything gets blocked. The idea of promoting free flow of knowledge and disabling IP logging needs to become ubiquitous, not restricted to the domain of a domain. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. http://wealthyworld.blogspot.com On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:49 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
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@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 2:13 PM To: at-large@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@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Sivasubramanian Thanks for giving such deep consideration to my proposal, and constructive engagement with it. The following is an attempt to take this dialogue forward. 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'. However, many here relate the concept of 'free speech' only (or mostly) to political controls, for whom it must be clarified that the 'dot pdc concept' is not to do with freedom from such controls. It has exclusively to do with freedom from wrongful commercial constraints to our day to day interactions, which most of us do in an open non-commercial spirit, but which in online spaces is rendered by default commercial and IP-ised unless stated otherwise. This I proposed is not a 'natural state' of our social discourse, and attempts should be made to restore the natural state of our social togetherness in the digital space. That leaves two other issues to be clarified. One, your query on, why not promote non-commercial speech and expression in all digital spaces rather than confining it to one tld. Well, we don't want to confine it all all - that will go against the basic principle. I or, if you permit the use of the collective, we consider it a great harm done to the fibre of our social discourse when over the last few decades the legal frameworks have changes to default copyright from default free and non-IP. This shift is related a larger political and social project of neoliberalisation, which I will not discuss any further here. To cut it short, we are against default copyright, and are strongly of the view that all forms of expression should be default open and free, and copyrights should only be granted if expressly asked for, and that too under strict conditions in keeping with larger public interest. In the present adverse 'legal' context, one way to express such popular sentiment will be to create a .pdc like tld and make it more popular that .com, which tld, in its overwhelming dominance of the digital space, represents what is wrong with the way digital space has sought to be rendered dominantly commercial, which, as I said, is not the natural state of most of our social discourse. That is what is being proposed, while we carry on our efforts and advocacy against default copyrights laws world over. In fact, what is being proposed is am important strategy to take such advocacy forward and give it some solid basis. Second issue that you raise is - why not just keep using CC licenses instead? We all know that the CC movement represents a watershed in politics of the digital world. The CC initiative has one important advantage - it allows one to preserve partial ownership over ones 'knowledge produce', in a manner the 'creator' may want to so preserve. This is useful in a large part of 'content space' where idea of individual creation and ownership still has some basis and meaning. Use of CC license principally allows more freedoms to the 'creator'. As the CC website puts it "from "all rights reserved" to "some rights reserved". (Although an extreme form of CC license also allows complete repudiation of all rights, that is giving up the content to the public domain, that is not the way CC license is mostly used.) However, there is much in our social discourse to which we do not instinctively attach the concept of individual creator, and thus some inherent ownership rights. One goes through a day speaking and expressing much without this feeling at back of ones mind. That essential nature of our social being is what has been compromised in the online space through default IP-isation. CC doesn't address the situation vis a vis such non-productized social 'content'. Another problem with CC licensing is that one has to expressly state it every time one wants content to be IP-free (absolutely or relatively). The idea of a dedicated online space, that can only be done through a dedicated tld, is to make an inversion of legal situation vis a vis content ownership through the simple act of making giving up content rights a condition of domain registration and use (there still may be some legal niceties or ugliness-es to be sorted out here). This will enable us to put all such social interaction which is genuinely and inherently of collective social ownership under a non-ownership or non-IP public domain space. It is only a raw idea yet. And, apologies for the long posting. Parminder _____ From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 8:54 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Cc: Vittorio Bertola; Parminder Subject: Re: [At-Large] FW: My comments on new gTLDs and the role of ICANN Hello All, I have read a little somewhere on the issues raised in the thread, and have learnt a little more, to add the following: It is harder to run a TLD than it appears on the surface. Vittorio's commitment to preserve a dying language is to be applauded, but is a TLD the only solution? Is it difficult to achieve what is intended with a lower-hierarchy solution, like an SLD or lower, or even simply a portal? Such a solution would cost less and can go up online even faster than the complex solution of a dedicated gTLD. In addition to the general comments on my previous response in this thread, here are some specific comments and questions, this time, pointed directly at Parminder. It appears that the underlying idea of Parminder's domain for "public domain content" is to promote free flow of knowledge by enabling a non-copyright culture and the idea of establishing it as a domain where IP addresses are NOT logged appears to be that of promoting free speech. Why would free flow of knowledge be confined to a specific gTLD? Why not in .com, .in and .org or even in .gov ? There are several tools such as the Creative Commons license available to achieve that Universally - rather than promote this universally why move to confine freedom to a specific TLD? If the idea is to keep an entire TLD open for those who are oppressed and are in need of space for free speech, a TLD isn't right, because EVERYTHING that is free can be filtered out with one stroke - block this TLD, and everything gets blocked. The idea of promoting free flow of knowledge and disabling IP logging needs to become ubiquitous, not restricted to the domain of a domain. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. http://wealthyworld.blogspot.com On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:49 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote: 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@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 2:13 PM To: at-large@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@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@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 -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy -- http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy ha scritto:
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.
Sure in the world there are several thousand languages and it could be hard to imagine that each of them gets a TLD. But in the world there are considerably more corporations that can afford to spend $185'000 as part of their brand protection and promotion strategy, so to have it as a TLD, and ICANN doesn't seem to be concerned with that. Either there is a consideration on whether the application is "worthy" and "useful", or there isn't. However, what ICANN plans to do is that they judge whether an application is "worthy" only by the fact that it comes from a wealthy and well organized applicant that can afford a high amount of money. So any billionaire could have a personal "vanity TLD", but an NGO working to protect an indigenous people could not: why? Is that a good policy? Finally, it seems to me that you entirely miss the symbolic value of a TLD. I've heard objections like yours for years by the people who created the Internet; I remember Vint Cerf telling in public to the Nokia people "but why do you need .mobi? Couldn't you just give away subdomains under mobi.com?". Yet the boost that .mobi has given to the development of content specifically designed for mobile phones, and of mobile-based Internet access in certain parts of the world, is undeniable. This objection reminds me of when the engineers were complaining about people insisting to see semantic value in domain names, and thus requesting content-oriented policies, such as the UDRP. The engineers kept saying "but it's just identifiers, like telephone numbers - it's just your misperception". Yet, in reality, perception is everything; so they failed to convince the other billion users of the Internet that they should refrain from considering the semantic value of domain names, and nowadays there is no question anymore: domain name policies must keep into account semantic values. So, TLDs can do a lot to promote a sense of identity among online communities, and to provide credible online entry points for those who are still offline; yes there's not much of a difference in practice, it's just URLs, but it does a lot of a difference in terms of perception and identity. Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
I'm a member of the at large - but for some reason can't post there. I am therefore refering my reply to the GA - which also is very much interested in the topic. On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy ha scritto:
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.
Sure in the world there are several thousand languages and it could be hard to imagine that each of them gets a TLD.
Hard to imagine? Hardly! I can imagine a world of millions of TLDs. If the .COM zone can have millions of TLDs - there is no technical reason why the same could not also be applied to ICANN. And the demand is there. The HEX project in the Netherlands originally sponsored by Herman Xennt and now Martijn Burger proved conclusively that demand exists for millions of TLDs - right here - right now. IDN is still a small fraction of that demand - but a fraction thats growing. But in the world there are considerably more corporations that can
afford to spend $185'000 as part of their brand protection and promotion strategy, so to have it as a TLD, and ICANN doesn't seem to be concerned with that.
Yes - it is strange that an organization dedicated to the Intellectual Property communities protection in the realm of SLDs does not seem as dedicated to promoting those same principles for TLDs. Now the $185,000 is absolutely ridiculous. It will leave out hundreds of thousands of potential TLD holders - now every corporation can justify $185,000. And many language communities in the market for a IDN TLD would be hard pressed to raise that capital.
Either there is a consideration on whether the application is "worthy" and "useful", or there isn't. However, what ICANN plans to do is that they judge whether an application is "worthy" only by the fact that it comes from a wealthy and well organized applicant that can afford a high amount of money.
and constant ICANN ass kissing.
So any billionaire could have a personal "vanity TLD", but an NGO working to protect an indigenous people could not: why? Is that a good policy?
no - it is a policy of greed. once you start letting in the rabble it become more and more difficult to justify the fees ICANN wants.
Finally, it seems to me that you entirely miss the symbolic value of a TLD. I've heard objections like yours for years by the people who created the Internet; I remember Vint Cerf telling in public to the Nokia people "but why do you need .mobi? Couldn't you just give away subdomains under mobi.com?". Yet the boost that .mobi has given to the development of content specifically designed for mobile phones, and of mobile-based Internet access in certain parts of the world, is undeniable.
Ah yes, the Vint Cerf jeddie technique for hypnotizing people in public. The Nokia people had a great idea there.
This objection reminds me of when the engineers were complaining about people insisting to see semantic value in domain names, and thus requesting content-oriented policies, such as the UDRP.
That sort of nonsense is not really fair to the users. Many users register SLD just because they sound good to them. To the user a domain is just an identity. Just because the purpose of the .ca gTLD is to provide domains in canada - there have been cases of people creating domains from outside canada. the gTLD .ca I understand is very popular in california.
The engineers kept saying "but it's just identifiers, like telephone numbers - it's just your misperception".
Thats the truth of it. Technically speaking its just labels and numbers. The numbers exist for machines to communicate between each other and the labels that map to the numbers are usually designed to be human friendly - easy to remember - unlike numbers which are to made hard.
Yet, in reality, perception is everything; so they failed to convince the other billion users of the Internet that they should refrain from considering the semantic value of domain names, and nowadays there is no question anymore: domain name policies must keep into account semantic values.
Perception is everything. I agree. The problem with ICANN is lack of choice.
So, TLDs can do a lot to promote a sense of identity among online communities, and to provide credible online entry points for those who are still offline; yes there's not much of a difference in practice, it's just URLs, but it does a lot of a difference in terms of perception and identity.
Many countries today run their own IDN TLDs. China is one of the largest to do so. regards joe baptista -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
This message came through the At-Large list without any intervention. On 11/11/2008 19:13, "Joe Baptista" <baptista@publicroot.org> wrote: I'm a member of the at large - but for some reason can't post there. I am therefore refering my reply to the GA - which also is very much interested in the topic. On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy ha scritto:
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.
Sure in the world there are several thousand languages and it could be hard to imagine that each of them gets a TLD.
Hard to imagine? Hardly! I can imagine a world of millions of TLDs. If the .COM zone can have millions of TLDs - there is no technical reason why the same could not also be applied to ICANN. And the demand is there. The HEX project in the Netherlands originally sponsored by Herman Xennt and now Martijn Burger proved conclusively that demand exists for millions of TLDs - right here - right now. IDN is still a small fraction of that demand - but a fraction thats growing. But in the world there are considerably more corporations that can
afford to spend $185'000 as part of their brand protection and promotion strategy, so to have it as a TLD, and ICANN doesn't seem to be concerned with that.
Yes - it is strange that an organization dedicated to the Intellectual Property communities protection in the realm of SLDs does not seem as dedicated to promoting those same principles for TLDs. Now the $185,000 is absolutely ridiculous. It will leave out hundreds of thousands of potential TLD holders - now every corporation can justify $185,000. And many language communities in the market for a IDN TLD would be hard pressed to raise that capital.
Either there is a consideration on whether the application is "worthy" and "useful", or there isn't. However, what ICANN plans to do is that they judge whether an application is "worthy" only by the fact that it comes from a wealthy and well organized applicant that can afford a high amount of money.
and constant ICANN ass kissing.
So any billionaire could have a personal "vanity TLD", but an NGO working to protect an indigenous people could not: why? Is that a good policy?
no - it is a policy of greed. once you start letting in the rabble it become more and more difficult to justify the fees ICANN wants.
Finally, it seems to me that you entirely miss the symbolic value of a TLD. I've heard objections like yours for years by the people who created the Internet; I remember Vint Cerf telling in public to the Nokia people "but why do you need .mobi? Couldn't you just give away subdomains under mobi.com?". Yet the boost that .mobi has given to the development of content specifically designed for mobile phones, and of mobile-based Internet access in certain parts of the world, is undeniable.
Ah yes, the Vint Cerf jeddie technique for hypnotizing people in public. The Nokia people had a great idea there.
This objection reminds me of when the engineers were complaining about people insisting to see semantic value in domain names, and thus requesting content-oriented policies, such as the UDRP.
That sort of nonsense is not really fair to the users. Many users register SLD just because they sound good to them. To the user a domain is just an identity. Just because the purpose of the .ca gTLD is to provide domains in canada - there have been cases of people creating domains from outside canada. the gTLD .ca I understand is very popular in california.
The engineers kept saying "but it's just identifiers, like telephone numbers - it's just your misperception".
Thats the truth of it. Technically speaking its just labels and numbers. The numbers exist for machines to communicate between each other and the labels that map to the numbers are usually designed to be human friendly - easy to remember - unlike numbers which are to made hard.
Yet, in reality, perception is everything; so they failed to convince the other billion users of the Internet that they should refrain from considering the semantic value of domain names, and nowadays there is no question anymore: domain name policies must keep into account semantic values.
Perception is everything. I agree. The problem with ICANN is lack of choice.
So, TLDs can do a lot to promote a sense of identity among online communities, and to provide credible online entry points for those who are still offline; yes there's not much of a difference in practice, it's just URLs, but it does a lot of a difference in terms of perception and identity.
Many countries today run their own IDN TLDs. China is one of the largest to do so. regards joe baptista -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
Hello Vittoria, On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy ha scritto:
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.
Sure in the world there are several thousand languages and it could be hard to imagine that each of them gets a TLD.
But in the world there are considerably more corporations that can afford to spend $185'000 as part of their brand protection and promotion strategy, so to have it as a TLD, and ICANN doesn't seem to be concerned with that.
This is a very valid argument. I am going to take a lot of time to respond to this in greater detail on the aspect of corporate TLDs and 'vanity' names. But for now, the argument that thousands of language TLDs ought to be permissible because thousands of corporate TLDs are permitted has logical merit.
Either there is a consideration on whether the application is "worthy" and "useful", or there isn't. However, what ICANN plans to do is that they judge whether an application is "worthy" only by the fact that it comes from a wealthy and well organized applicant that can afford a high amount of money.
So any billionaire could have a personal "vanity TLD", but an NGO working to protect an indigenous people could not: why? Is that a good policy?
Any organization, be it the UN, ICANN or IETF, requires funds, and each (non-profit) organization, big or small, follows its own rationale of what constitutes a proper method of raising the REQUIRED funds for its operations. There is bound to some rationale in ICANN's decision to charge a fee for allocation of new TLDs as against a policy of granting it pro-bono (and then having to raise funds for its operations by way of higher membership dues, or by appeals for government grants or by accepting grants from corporations). If ICANN were to announce that it will bring down the fee to zero, and get a DOC grant to bridge the gap - for argument - would that be acceptable to us? So I wouldn't really generalize by saying that it is wrong on the part of ICANN to have decided to charge a fee. At the same time, ICANN could also consider either a case to case basis waiver of all or part of the fees, or even think of categories of fees for new domain names - for instance commercial corporations with a commercial domain name allocation business plans charged a higher fee, non-profits a subsized fee or a fully waived fee. This is a new process at ICANN, the guidelines are new, announced recently, and there is bound to be scope for amendments.
Finally, it seems to me that you entirely miss the symbolic value of a TLD. I've heard objections like yours for years by the people who created the Internet; I remember Vint Cerf telling in public to the Nokia people "but why do you need .mobi? Couldn't you just give away subdomains under mobi.com?". Yet the boost that .mobi has given to the development of content specifically designed for mobile phones, and of mobile-based Internet access in certain parts of the world, is undeniable.
This objection reminds me of when the engineers were complaining about people insisting to see semantic value in domain names, and thus requesting content-oriented policies, such as the UDRP. The engineers kept saying "but it's just identifiers, like telephone numbers - it's just your misperception". Yet, in reality, perception is everything; so they failed to convince the other billion users of the Internet that they should refrain from considering the semantic value of domain names, and nowadays there is no question anymore: domain name policies must keep into account semantic values.
So, TLDs can do a lot to promote a sense of identity among online communities, and to provide credible online entry points for those who are still offline; yes there's not much of a difference in practice, it's just URLs, but it does a lot of a difference in terms of perception and identity.
True. On the other hand the trend towards new TLDs, especially for languages and cultures should not unwittingly lead to fragmentation. There are several issues to be considered. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy ha scritto:
So I wouldn't really generalize by saying that it is wrong on the part of ICANN to have decided to charge a fee. At the same time, ICANN could also consider either a case to case basis waiver of all or part of the fees, or even think of categories of fees for new domain names - for instance commercial corporations with a commercial domain name allocation business plans charged a higher fee, non-profits a subsized fee or a fully waived fee.
I think that this would be a good solution, but let me make one more point: these fees really seem to be artificially high, much higher than the actual cost of evaluating the applications ($185'000 * 500 applications = $92.5 million; the cost of processing application is almost entirely made by people's time to examine them; with $92.5 million, even in developed countries, you can hire 2000 people for a year, at $46'250/person/year, or 1000 people at $92'500/person/year; do you really need all those people??) I wouldn't really say that we need ICANN to find subsidies for non-profit applications - I would say that we just need ICANN to keep the fees strictly equal to actual and direct costs, and IMHO the fee would be much lower. Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Hello Vittorio, your reasoning wrt costs is one which has been echoed by many participants. However, have you read the document entitled "New gTLD Programme: Draft Applicant Guidebook (Draft RFP), Explanatory Memoranda and Supporting Documents"? Do you disagree with the methodology described in the part of the document entitled "Cost Considerations of the New wwgTLD Program"? Of particular inteest, do you disagree with the diagram shown on page 9 of the document? BTW I am entirely neutral on the matter. I can understand ICANN's explanation for the high fees, but I also understand that for applicants such as yourself, this is very expensive. As such, I fear that there may not be any win-win position on this. O. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vittorio Bertola" <vb@bertola.eu> To: "Sivasubramanian Muthusamy" <isolatedn@gmail.com> Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] FW: My comments on new gTLDs and the role of ICANN
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy ha scritto:
So I wouldn't really generalize by saying that it is wrong on the part of ICANN to have decided to charge a fee. At the same time, ICANN could also consider either a case to case basis waiver of all or part of the fees, or even think of categories of fees for new domain names - for instance commercial corporations with a commercial domain name allocation business plans charged a higher fee, non-profits a subsized fee or a fully waived fee.
I think that this would be a good solution, but let me make one more point: these fees really seem to be artificially high, much higher than the actual cost of evaluating the applications ($185'000 * 500 applications = $92.5 million; the cost of processing application is almost entirely made by people's time to examine them; with $92.5 million, even in developed countries, you can hire 2000 people for a year, at $46'250/person/year, or 1000 people at $92'500/person/year; do you really need all those people??)
I wouldn't really say that we need ICANN to find subsidies for non-profit applications - I would say that we just need ICANN to keep the fees strictly equal to actual and direct costs, and IMHO the fee would be much lower.
Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ha scritto:
Hello Vittorio,
your reasoning wrt costs is one which has been echoed by many participants.
However, have you read the document entitled "New gTLD Programme: Draft Applicant Guidebook (Draft RFP), Explanatory Memoranda and Supporting Documents"? Do you disagree with the methodology described in the part of the document entitled "Cost Considerations of the New wwgTLD Program"? Of particular inteest, do you disagree with the diagram shown on page 9 of the document?
It's not that I "disagree", it's that the numbers in that document are insufficient to make any real evaluation. They could be true or not, we can't know. I actually sent an evaluation about this to someone who replied to my original message to the Board, so here it is: === First the paper says: we spent $1.8M to process ten applications in 2003, so the processing cost was $180k/application. Then ICANN also estimated the cost bottom-up. The paper says that ICANN already spent $12.8M, mostly in salaries, on this program, which makes $26k/application. Then it estimated the work-hours required by the processing itself, attaching a probability to each possible processing path; here there are no published numbers to support the conclusion, but it adds up to $100k/application. Then there is a final figure, which is what in a business plan you usually add as "misc" or "reserve" to cover for unexpected expenses, which was estimated by Willis to be $60k/application. The total, $185k/application, is actually very similar to the 2003 cost. Now, we have really no information to verify these evaluations - you would have to go through the entire data set. Seen from the outside, however, there are some things that are not convincing, and most people I've talked to have questioned them. The most frequent points are: - how come that per-application costs for processing 500 applications in a structured manner are the same than for processing 10 applications on an experimental basis several years ago? - how can you have a 'risk fee' of 1/3 of the total? isn't that excessive, or just a way to inflate the fee? - almost all the cost is made up by people's work; now, with $185k one could hire 4-6 people for a year, per each application - or, with $80M one could hire hundreds of people for a year; do you really need that much work? what will those people be actually doing? - even if this was the actual cost of processing these application, isn't ICANN making this thing excessively complex? couldn't it just pick a simpler process that would have a lower cost? (I actually disagree with the last objection, but I agree about the first three.)
BTW I am entirely neutral on the matter. I can understand ICANN's explanation for the high fees, but I also understand that for applicants such as yourself, this is very expensive. As such, I fear that there may not be any win-win position on this.
The problem here is that we all should win, not ICANN or the applicants. So, how can you get the best and fairest result from this process? ICANN's role is supposed to be that of a neutral steward and supplier of a service which is necessarily provided under a monopoly. This is why it should just charge its costs, not more. Several people really can't see how, in the end, one can claim that it costs $92.5 million to add 500 new TLDs to the root (when Verisign can add millions of .com domains for $7 each and still make huge profits). This doesn't mean that this cost is necessarily false, it just means that it's hard to believe and better proofs are needed. For example, let's pick the 12.8 million dollars that ICANN claims to have already spent on this project, of which almost 8 million are salaries. Whose salaries are they? For how long? What did these people do? Are these expenses really and directly related to new gTLDs, or not? We really can't say and we need much deeper information. Otherwise, the result will just be a rush of people saying that it's just "empire building" by people at ICANN who enjoy fat salaries and five star travel at the expense of Internet users, and want to extract as much money as possible to further the situation. This is quite a simplistic and ingenerous view, yet it's what emerges from many. Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Vittorio, as I've mentioned, I'm neutral on this matter. My feeling, though, is that the largest cost might not come from the actual process itself, but from complications to the process which are hard to estimate. An example would be a lawsuit from an applicant not happy to have been refused an application. You are completely correct in saying that all of these figures are all very hard to estimate. This is all pioneering work... Perhaps should ICANN subscribe to some kind of liability insurance against lawsuits, the cost of which they will then have as a fixed cost, to be calculated in the price of a gTLD. Yes, I know, the good people will pay for the bad people, but that's how the world of insurance works... Clearly a dichotomy here - one the one hand, spending more time on the pricing model & discussing it might be needed. On the other, applicants have waited for so long for things to move forward... Thanks for keeping us all informed on the subject. Kind regards, Olivier ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vittorio Bertola" <vb@bertola.eu> To: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "Sivasubramanian Muthusamy" <isolatedn@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 12:44 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] FW: My comments on new gTLDs and the role of ICANN
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ha scritto:
Hello Vittorio,
your reasoning wrt costs is one which has been echoed by many participants.
However, have you read the document entitled "New gTLD Programme: Draft Applicant Guidebook (Draft RFP), Explanatory Memoranda and Supporting Documents"? Do you disagree with the methodology described in the part of the document entitled "Cost Considerations of the New wwgTLD Program"? Of particular inteest, do you disagree with the diagram shown on page 9 of the document?
It's not that I "disagree", it's that the numbers in that document are insufficient to make any real evaluation. They could be true or not, we can't know. I actually sent an evaluation about this to someone who replied to my original message to the Board, so here it is:
=== First the paper says: we spent $1.8M to process ten applications in 2003, so the processing cost was $180k/application.
Then ICANN also estimated the cost bottom-up. The paper says that ICANN already spent $12.8M, mostly in salaries, on this program, which makes $26k/application.
Then it estimated the work-hours required by the processing itself, attaching a probability to each possible processing path; here there are no published numbers to support the conclusion, but it adds up to $100k/application.
Then there is a final figure, which is what in a business plan you usually add as "misc" or "reserve" to cover for unexpected expenses, which was estimated by Willis to be $60k/application.
The total, $185k/application, is actually very similar to the 2003 cost.
Now, we have really no information to verify these evaluations - you would have to go through the entire data set. Seen from the outside, however, there are some things that are not convincing, and most people I've talked to have questioned them.
The most frequent points are: - how come that per-application costs for processing 500 applications in a structured manner are the same than for processing 10 applications on an experimental basis several years ago? - how can you have a 'risk fee' of 1/3 of the total? isn't that excessive, or just a way to inflate the fee? - almost all the cost is made up by people's work; now, with $185k one could hire 4-6 people for a year, per each application - or, with $80M one could hire hundreds of people for a year; do you really need that much work? what will those people be actually doing? - even if this was the actual cost of processing these application, isn't ICANN making this thing excessively complex? couldn't it just pick a simpler process that would have a lower cost?
(I actually disagree with the last objection, but I agree about the first three.)
BTW I am entirely neutral on the matter. I can understand ICANN's explanation for the high fees, but I also understand that for applicants such as yourself, this is very expensive. As such, I fear that there may not be any win-win position on this.
The problem here is that we all should win, not ICANN or the applicants. So, how can you get the best and fairest result from this process?
ICANN's role is supposed to be that of a neutral steward and supplier of a service which is necessarily provided under a monopoly. This is why it should just charge its costs, not more. Several people really can't see how, in the end, one can claim that it costs $92.5 million to add 500 new TLDs to the root (when Verisign can add millions of .com domains for $7 each and still make huge profits). This doesn't mean that this cost is necessarily false, it just means that it's hard to believe and better proofs are needed.
For example, let's pick the 12.8 million dollars that ICANN claims to have already spent on this project, of which almost 8 million are salaries. Whose salaries are they? For how long? What did these people do? Are these expenses really and directly related to new gTLDs, or not? We really can't say and we need much deeper information.
Otherwise, the result will just be a rush of people saying that it's just "empire building" by people at ICANN who enjoy fat salaries and five star travel at the expense of Internet users, and want to extract as much money as possible to further the situation. This is quite a simplistic and ingenerous view, yet it's what emerges from many.
Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Dear Olivier, Dear colleagues, As Vittorio stated, and I have to congratulate him for his beautiful statement (which I support 200%), ICANN has to respect smaller communities. If the goal is Internet for everyone, why the price is in perspective of large organisations or communities ? Indeed, in the Guidebook we see fees as 185.000 $ and 75.000 $, prices several communities around the world can not afford. Moreover, 75.000 $ is not 5 % of revenue of a small gTLD ! Let's consider a small community willing to share among them the possibility of their own gTLD, having only 50.000 $ revenue, well 5% of that revenue is not 75.000 $ but only 2.500 $. So, it is in disproportion and somewhere that's what Vittorio and myself, are willing to get discussed in the very near future. I'm joining him in this perspective and will, as soon as I'm back from Tokyo, have another mail on this topic. Hope it becomes clear that, from ALAC's perspective, representing smaller communities, this is indeed a very important topic to get involvement of all our ALSes. Hope to read you soon. Rudi Vansnick President - CEO Internet Society Belgium vzw Vice-chair ISOC European Chapters Coordinating Council Board member EURALO (ALAC-ICANN) /Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen Belgium GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32 - Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39/ www.isoc.be <http://www.isoc.be> - www.isoc.eu <http://www.isoc.eu> - www.euralo.org <http://www.euralo.org> Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond schreef:
Hello Vittorio,
your reasoning wrt costs is one which has been echoed by many participants.
However, have you read the document entitled "New gTLD Programme: Draft Applicant Guidebook (Draft RFP), Explanatory Memoranda and Supporting Documents"? Do you disagree with the methodology described in the part of the document entitled "Cost Considerations of the New wwgTLD Program"? Of particular inteest, do you disagree with the diagram shown on page 9 of the document?
BTW I am entirely neutral on the matter. I can understand ICANN's explanation for the high fees, but I also understand that for applicants such as yourself, this is very expensive. As such, I fear that there may not be any win-win position on this.
O.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Vittorio Bertola" <vb@bertola.eu> To: "Sivasubramanian Muthusamy" <isolatedn@gmail.com> Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] FW: My comments on new gTLDs and the role of ICANN
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy ha scritto:
So I wouldn't really generalize by saying that it is wrong on the
part of
ICANN to have decided to charge a fee. At the same time, ICANN
could also
consider either a case to case basis waiver of all or part of the
fees, or
even think of categories of fees for new domain names - for
instance
commercial corporations with a commercial domain name allocation
business
plans charged a higher fee, non-profits a subsized fee or a fully
waived
fee.
I think that this would be a good solution, but let me make one more point: these fees really seem to be artificially high, much higher
than
the actual cost of evaluating the applications ($185'000 * 500 applications = $92.5 million; the cost of processing application is almost entirely made by people's time to examine them; with $92.5 million, even in developed countries, you can hire 2000 people for a year, at $46'250/person/year, or 1000 people at $92'500/person/year;
do
you really need all those people??)
I wouldn't really say that we need ICANN to find subsidies for non-profit applications - I would say that we just need ICANN to
keep
the fees strictly equal to actual and direct costs, and IMHO the fee would be much lower.
Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu
<--------
--------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/
<--------
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.2/1782 - Release Date: 11/11/2008 19:32
participants (7)
-
Joe Baptista -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Parminder -
Rudi Vansnick -
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy -
Vittorio Bertola