Hi Lutz and all, Thanks for sharing. I read through ICANN’s response, and while I agree with Antony – they do say their commitment to diversity and inclusion hasn’t changed – the shift in wording still feels concerning. As the At-Large, it’s really up to us to protect end-user participation and diversity around the globe. Maybe we should think about putting out a (joint?) statement to make sure the message from the community resonates beyond silos and ICANN hears us clearly? What do you all think? Best to all, Joanna pon., 19 maj 2025 o 15:24 Antony Van Couvering via At-Large < at-large@icann.org> napisał(a):

Allow me to translate:

“While we may have changed some words on our website in order to appease tyrants, ICANN participants should know that as always we will continue to act exactly as we please regardless of what we say publicly, and thus nothing of substance will change.”

On May 19, 2025, at 5:58 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight via At-Large < at-large@icann.org> wrote:

https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/clarifying-recent-language-updates-on...

-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains *https://www.blacknight.com/ <https://www.blacknight.com/>* *https://blacknight.blog/ <https://blacknight.blog/>* Intl. *+353 (0) 59 9183072 <+353599183072>* Direct Dial: *+353 (0)59 9183090 <+353599183090>* Personal blog: *https://michele.blog/ <https://michele.blog/>* Some thoughts: *https://ceo.hosting/ <https://ceo.hosting/>* ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845

I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. *From: *Lutz Donnerhacke via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, 19 May 2025 at 13:21 *To: *'At-Large Worldwide' <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject: *[At-Large] ICANN bows to Trump

[EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources.

https://domainincite.com/31049-icann-kills-off-diversity-and-inclusion It's a pity.

ICANN establishes the trust in its function of govern the global rules for the Internet by representing the whole community of all stakeholders. By dropping the representation, ICANN could lose its standing, and eventually lose the trust in the rules generated. This is the way into meaninglessness.

Lutz

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- Kind regards, Joanna Kulesza ------------------- Joanna Kulesza, PhD Professor of International Law Lodz Cyber Hub / University of Lodz Law School / Poland www.cyber.uni.lodz.pl (EURALO ALS 341) ALAC / EURALO / ALAC Liaison to the GAC

A key pillar in the outreach to the emerging and underserved regions is the concept of participation based on inclusion and diversity (my understanding anyway). Be interesting to see how this get massaged. Lance Hinds Chair Elect - LACRALO Lance Hinds Chief Technology Officer BrainStreet Group 287 'C' Albert St. Georgetown Guyana This message contains information that may be privileged and/or confidential and is the property of BrainStreet Technologies or BrainStreet Learning. The information contained herein is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it . If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or take any action in reliance to the contents of this information or any part thereof and it may be unlawful to do so. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message from your system. BrainStreet Technologies or BrainStreet Learning are neither liable for the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor any delay in its receipt. On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 9:24 AM Antony Van Couvering via At-Large < at-large@icann.org> wrote:

Allow me to translate:

“While we may have changed some words on our website in order to appease tyrants, ICANN participants should know that as always we will continue to act exactly as we please regardless of what we say publicly, and thus nothing of substance will change.”

On May 19, 2025, at 5:58 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight via At-Large < at-large@icann.org> wrote:

https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/clarifying-recent-language-updates-on...

-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains *https://www.blacknight.com/ <https://www.blacknight.com/>* *https://blacknight.blog/ <https://blacknight.blog/>* Intl. *+353 (0) 59 9183072 <+353599183072>* Direct Dial: *+353 (0)59 9183090 <+353599183090>* Personal blog: *https://michele.blog/ <https://michele.blog/>* Some thoughts: *https://ceo.hosting/ <https://ceo.hosting/>* ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845

I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. *From: *Lutz Donnerhacke via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, 19 May 2025 at 13:21 *To: *'At-Large Worldwide' <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject: *[At-Large] ICANN bows to Trump

[EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources.

https://domainincite.com/31049-icann-kills-off-diversity-and-inclusion It's a pity.

ICANN establishes the trust in its function of govern the global rules for the Internet by representing the whole community of all stakeholders. By dropping the representation, ICANN could lose its standing, and eventually lose the trust in the rules generated. This is the way into meaninglessness.

Lutz

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

So can we dismiss Milton's book as misinformative wishful thinking *now*? - Evan

Good afternoon: Since ICANN's earliest days, the principle of Diversity has been primarily and effectively applied to Geographical Diversity, notably in the composition of the Board. Thus, Diversity has acquired an international political dimension. The objective of Gender Balance is distinct. CW

On 19 May 2025, at 16:42, Lance Hinds via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> wrote:

A key pillar in the outreach to the emerging and underserved regions is the concept of participation based on inclusion and diversity (my understanding anyway). Be interesting to see how this get massaged.

Lance Hinds Chair Elect - LACRALO

Lance Hinds Chief Technology Officer BrainStreet Group 287 'C' Albert St. Georgetown Guyana

This message contains information that may be privileged and/or confidential and is the property of BrainStreet Technologies or BrainStreet Learning. The information contained herein is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it . If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or take any action in reliance to the contents of this information or any part thereof and it may be unlawful to do so. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message from your system. BrainStreet Technologies or BrainStreet Learning are neither liable for the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor any delay in its receipt.

On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 9:24 AM Antony Van Couvering via At-Large <at-large@icann.org <mailto:at-large@icann.org>> wrote:

...

Allow me to translate:

“While we may have changed some words on our website in order to appease tyrants, ICANN participants should know that as always we will continue to act exactly as we please regardless of what we say publicly, and thus nothing of substance will change.”

...

On May 19, 2025, at 5:58 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight via At-Large <at-large@icann.org <mailto:at-large@icann.org>> wrote:

https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/clarifying-recent-language-updates-on...

-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072 <tel:+353599183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 <tel:+353599183090> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845

I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. From: Lutz Donnerhacke via At-Large <at-large@icann.org <mailto:at-large@icann.org>> Date: Monday, 19 May 2025 at 13:21 To: 'At-Large Worldwide' <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> Subject: [At-Large] ICANN bows to Trump

[EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources.

https://domainincite.com/31049-icann-kills-off-diversity-and-inclusion It's a pity.

ICANN establishes the trust in its function of govern the global rules for the Internet by representing the whole community of all stakeholders. By dropping the representation, ICANN could lose its standing, and eventually lose the trust in the rules generated. This is the way into meaninglessness.

Lutz

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org <mailto:at-large@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org <mailto:at-large-leave@icann.org>

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org <mailto:at-large@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org <mailto:at-large-leave@icann.org>

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org <mailto:at-large@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org <mailto:at-large-leave@icann.org>

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

---

At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

If ICANN is claiming not to change any policies on diversity and inclusion, why is it necessary to change the wording? 'External dynamics'??? That in itself should be clarifed. I would have naively thought it important to continue to clearly indicate that diversity and inclusion is an integral part of the multistakeholder process at ICANN. This includes the approximately 1.3 billion people with disability globally. Shall we remove the disability/accessibility question in the ICANN meeting registration form, for example? What about the various groups within ICANN that have been/are working on programs that support diversity and inclusion? Will those initiatives be shelved quietly? In ALAC's What we do, it still states that the community can 'Explore the working groups in Get Involved, and you are also welcome to contribute in terms of advancing accessibility and inclusion at ICANN'. Will ALAC be discussing and making a statement? Gunela Karl Auerbach via At-Large wrote on 20/5/2025 10:01 am:

On 5/19/25 5:21 AM, Lutz Donnerhacke via At-Large wrote:

...

https://domainincite.com/31049-icann-kills-off-diversity-and-inclusion It's a pity.

More than a pity.  ICANN's footprint is worldwide.  Yet here is ICANN dancing to a foul tune of hate, bias, and discrimination being played by exactly one of the more than 150 national governments.

That might make those other countries wonder "what tune can our country play to make ICANN dance to our policy whims?"

And it might add to the skepticism of people in those other countries who wonder whether ICANN is really an aspect of US hegemony.

The process of fracturing the Internet into regional, cultural, religious, or corporate internets is slow - but this move by ICANN is, in my eyes, a big wedge and sledge that significantly weakens the bonds that hold ICANN and the Internet together.

One might ask "Who in ICANN decided on this change?"  And "why?".

    --karl--

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/ policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/ tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Totally agree Amrita.. On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 5:33 PM Amrita Choudhury via At-Large < at-large@icann.org> wrote:

It is very concerning for many of us from around the world to see the words '*diversity and inclusion*' being removed from ICANN's website despite the assurance that it will be ensured even if the words are removed.

Let us not forget that these words had been incorporated by organisation's and many governments after many years of hard fought battles to create an inclusive society where people coming from different cultures, religions, backgrounds and gender could be treated as equals. Both addition or removal of the words have far reaching consequences on what is the message we want to give to the world.

ICANN has always portrayed that it is a *neutral, global technical body operating out of the US.* However, removing the text to keep with present circumstances brings in questions on the"neutral nature" of the organization.

From APRALO's perspective where our tagline is "Celebrating Diversity" this is quite a disturbing development.

As a community member, I would urge ICANN to bring the previous text back and take a principled position before the global community.

Regards

Amrita

On Tue, 20 May 2025 at 07:39, Gunela Astbrink via At-Large < at-large@icann.org> wrote:

...

If ICANN is claiming not to change any policies on diversity and inclusion, why is it necessary to change the wording? 'External dynamics'??? That in itself should be clarifed.

I would have naively thought it important to continue to clearly indicate that diversity and inclusion is an integral part of the multistakeholder process at ICANN. This includes the approximately 1.3 billion people with disability globally. Shall we remove the disability/accessibility question in the ICANN meeting registration form, for example?

What about the various groups within ICANN that have been/are working on programs that support diversity and inclusion? Will those initiatives be shelved quietly?

In ALAC's What we do, it still states that the community can 'Explore the working groups in Get Involved, and you are also welcome to contribute in terms of advancing accessibility and inclusion at ICANN'.

Will ALAC be discussing and making a statement?

Gunela

Karl Auerbach via At-Large wrote on 20/5/2025 10:01 am:

...

On 5/19/25 5:21 AM, Lutz Donnerhacke via At-Large wrote:

...

https://domainincite.com/31049-icann-kills-off-diversity-and-inclusion It's a pity.

More than a pity. ICANN's footprint is worldwide. Yet here is ICANN dancing to a foul tune of hate, bias, and discrimination being played by exactly one of the more than 150 national governments.

That might make those other countries wonder "what tune can our country play to make ICANN dance to our policy whims?"

And it might add to the skepticism of people in those other countries who wonder whether ICANN is really an aspect of US hegemony.

The process of fracturing the Internet into regional, cultural, religious, or corporate internets is slow - but this move by ICANN is, in my eyes, a big wedge and sledge that significantly weakens the bonds that hold ICANN and the Internet together.

One might ask "Who in ICANN decided on this change?" And "why?".

--karl--

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/ policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/ tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 8:02 PM Karl Auerbach via At-Large < at-large@icann.org> wrote: More than a pity. ICANN's footprint is worldwide. Yet here is ICANN

dancing to a foul tune of hate, bias, and discrimination being played by exactly one of the more than 150 national governments.

What is truly amazing is that anyone is surprised by this. The footprint may be worldwide but the feet belong to that one government. Others foresaw the problem. The RISC-V Foundation moved its headquarters from the USA to Switzerland in 2019 <https://www.techspot.com/news/82930-risc-v-standards-body-moving-switzerland...> because, unlike ICANN, it actually WANTED to be an international body rather than just cosplay as one. On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 10:09 PM Gunela Astbrink via At-Large < at-large@icann.org> wrote: Will ALAC be discussing and making a statement?

It can, but it is guaranteed to be pointless and powerless. That ship sailed away years ago when ALAC abrogated its commitment to speak for the world's end-users at the time of the IANA transition. Given the opportunity to become a truly international body accountable to the people of the world, ALAC bought into the utter bullshit of an "Empowered Community" that would ensure ongoing capture by American commercial interests who like playing by American rules. And if that means bending to the American political winds of the day, so be it. THAT was the time to take the courageous stand in support of the public interest that ALAC is charged to represent: to refuse to merely pass the accountability torch from American state interest to American commercial interest. It is these commercial interests that are threatened more by White House DEI rants than ICANN itself, but ... you reap what you sow. ALAC's self-selected elite forgot why they were there and chose willingly to be co-opted. Sitting on bureaucratic committees and redlining documents is a game you understand well; the thought of actively opposing the common wisdom OTOH was a source of raw fear and intense risk-aversion. *What will ICANN staff think of us?* *Will GNSO invite us to meetings anymore?* *Will anyone allow us to have liaisons?* *Will they cut our travel funding?* And out of this fear, ALAC continued to play the game, with a few tweaks here and there, rather than advocate for real ICANN accountability to the diversity of the world. And you now see the result. ALAC's true power is -- or at least could be -- not in the daily minutiae of statements and comments, but serving as ICANN's conscience. After all, its bylaw mandate is to *advise the Board directly*, everything else is secondary. Every few years a major occasion arises that enables ALAC to give voice to a world that doesn't buy domains yet is impacted by them. By and large every time these have happened -- treatment of TLD applicants from the global south, Universal Acceptance, the IANA transition, the proposed sale of .ORG -- ALAC has taken the easy paths, the ones that don't actually anger ICANN staff or the commercial interests (though ALAC is allowed to annoy them on occasion for the sake of appearances). While taking the path of least resistance may sometimes be a better choice, it should not be the default stance. Statements now might make the writers feel good but will struggle to find an audience. ALAC's complicity in ICANN's current trajectory is too well established for a meek objection at this point to have any credibility at all outside the bubble (and even inside). If there is any interest AT ALL in re-establishing credibility, perhaps ALAC may want to reflect on its actions, learn from them and may even take some back. Next year is the 10th anniversary of the IANA transition: an in-depth and honest study and review of its effects on ICANN's accountability to the world -- including the events that started this thread -- would be a good start. - Evan

Karl Auerbach via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> writes:

On 5/19/25 5:21 AM, Lutz Donnerhacke via At-Large wrote:

...

https://domainincite.com/31049-icann-kills-off-diversity-and-inclusion It's a pity.

More than a pity.  ICANN's footprint is worldwide.  Yet here is ICANN dancing to a foul tune of hate, bias, and discrimination being played by exactly one of the more than 150 national governments.

That might make those other countries wonder "what tune can our country play to make ICANN dance to our policy whims?"

And it might add to the skepticism of people in those other countries who wonder whether ICANN is really an aspect of US hegemony.

The process of fracturing the Internet into regional, cultural, religious, or corporate internets is slow - but this move by ICANN is, in my eyes, a big wedge and sledge that significantly weakens the bonds that hold ICANN and the Internet together.

One might ask "Who in ICANN decided on this change?"  And "why?".

    --karl--

ICANN is a US corporation (Californian isn't it still)? So it can't be surprising that the local political sphere creates waves within it. There was a sort of conceit that its legal jurisdiction as a US (nfp!) corporation is a good thing as it provides a sound legal framework that ensures that the global communities trying to achieve consensus over managing UIRs can do so separately to the exigencies and needs of US jurisdiction of ICANN under US jurisdiction. Too many now working through ICANN let alone at ICANN treat ICANN as the voice of the community rather than a disposable shell whose only remit and purpose is to serve the myriad communities around the world who deploy UIRs to manage and serve Internet user experiences. Rather important I think that the reaction to this is that those global communities stop being mesmerised by ICANN as a corporate body and instead focus on what they really need to achieve to ensure the Internet is for everyone. If ICANN fits a purpose to serve that then wonderful. If things have moved on then those functions can be handled in other ways and in alternative structures. I don't see this wording change as so significant as to require a rewrite of ICANN today but also I don't see Internet fragmentation as a function of diversity of management organisations of UIRs rather the contrary as a reaction to over centralisation. -- Christian de Larrinaga

puff puff from all directions. This really is a land of the magic dragons C Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc> writes:

One meaningless non-statement by ICANN has inspired people on this list to make long posts about principles.

Meanwhile others (or maybe the same ones) are working diligently on NomCom to find yet more go-along, get-along board members to rubber-stamp ICANN staff decisions.

You’ll know you’re getting somewhere when ICANN starts threatening your funding. So long as you have pleasant staff members “co-ordinating” and “assisting” activities and meetings with a smile, you know ICANN is happy with what you do. In the meantime, you can expect more betrayals, because strong statements about principles on the At-Large listserv are like trying to blow over windmills with gusts of air.

How about a demand from ALAC that the CEO or (gasp!) the General Counsel must go?

At least they’d read it.

...

On May 20, 2025, at 02:24, Christian de Larrinaga via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> wrote:



Karl Auerbach via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> writes:

...

...

On 5/19/25 5:21 AM, Lutz Donnerhacke via At-Large wrote: https://domainincite.com/31049-icann-kills-off-diversity-and-inclusion It's a pity.

More than a pity. ICANN's footprint is worldwide. Yet here is ICANN dancing to a foul tune of hate, bias, and discrimination being played by exactly one of the more than 150 national governments.

That might make those other countries wonder "what tune can our country play to make ICANN dance to our policy whims?"

And it might add to the skepticism of people in those other countries who wonder whether ICANN is really an aspect of US hegemony.

The process of fracturing the Internet into regional, cultural, religious, or corporate internets is slow - but this move by ICANN is, in my eyes, a big wedge and sledge that significantly weakens the bonds that hold ICANN and the Internet together.

One might ask "Who in ICANN decided on this change?" And "why?".

--karl--

ICANN is a US corporation (Californian isn't it still)? So it can't be surprising that the local political sphere creates waves within it.

There was a sort of conceit that its legal jurisdiction as a US (nfp!) corporation is a good thing as it provides a sound legal framework that ensures that the global communities trying to achieve consensus over managing UIRs can do so separately to the exigencies and needs of US jurisdiction of ICANN under US jurisdiction.

Too many now working through ICANN let alone at ICANN treat ICANN as the voice of the community rather than a disposable shell whose only remit and purpose is to serve the myriad communities around the world who deploy UIRs to manage and serve Internet user experiences.

Rather important I think that the reaction to this is that those global communities stop being mesmerised by ICANN as a corporate body and instead focus on what they really need to achieve to ensure the Internet is for everyone. If ICANN fits a purpose to serve that then wonderful. If things have moved on then those functions can be handled in other ways and in alternative structures.

I don't see this wording change as so significant as to require a rewrite of ICANN today but also I don't see Internet fragmentation as a function of diversity of management organisations of UIRs rather the contrary as a reaction to over centralisation.

-- Christian de Larrinaga _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- Christian de Larrinaga

ALAC doesn’t know its power because it has never tested its power. To date, it has politely stayed in its lane. Why is this? Surely the conscience of the organization, as I’ve seen ALAC described on this list, should be showing the board and the staff their failings in stark terms, and challenging them to do better, nagging them constantly, as consciences do. Consciences are not polite. I am reminded of the joke about the politician who struggled with his conscience: he won. But at least he had to struggle.

On May 20, 2025, at 6:27 AM, Glenn McKnight <mcknight.glenn@gmail.com> wrote:

I think we have a range of opinions on ICANN as to its efforts of promoting DEI and a stalwart for multistakeholderism. The critics are quick to point out ICANN's whitewashing and tokenism vs the potential to become truly a bottom up organization. Beyond the ethnic and geographical representation, we have huge swaths of underrepresented groups ie. Under 18 year olds, seniors, people of poverty and Persons with Disabilities, First Nations etc etc . We have to ask ourselves honestly Is Atlarge enabling ICANN to achieve its mission? or we are just patsies for a closed and self serving group. Perhaps a bit of both . G Glenn McKnight, MA Virtual School of Internet Governance Chief Information Officer www.virtualsig.org <http://www.virtualsig.org/> YOUR SOURCE FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE EDUCATION Mobile 437-237-4655

On Tue, 20 May 2025 at 09:15, Christian de Larrinaga via At-Large <at-large@icann.org <mailto:at-large@icann.org>> wrote:

...

puff puff from all directions. This really is a land of the magic dragons C

Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc <mailto:avc@avc.vc>> writes:

...

One meaningless non-statement by ICANN has inspired people on this list to make long posts about principles.

Meanwhile others (or maybe the same ones) are working diligently on NomCom to find yet more go-along, get-along board members to rubber-stamp ICANN staff decisions.

You’ll know you’re getting somewhere when ICANN starts threatening your funding. So long as you have pleasant staff members “co-ordinating” and “assisting” activities and meetings with a smile, you know ICANN is happy with what you do. In the meantime, you can expect more betrayals, because strong statements about principles on the At-Large listserv are like trying to blow over windmills with gusts of air.

How about a demand from ALAC that the CEO or (gasp!) the General Counsel must go?

At least they’d read it.

...

On May 20, 2025, at 02:24, Christian de Larrinaga via At-Large <at-large@icann.org <mailto:at-large@icann.org>> wrote:



Karl Auerbach via At-Large <at-large@icann.org <mailto:at-large@icann.org>> writes:

...

...

On 5/19/25 5:21 AM, Lutz Donnerhacke via At-Large wrote: https://domainincite.com/31049-icann-kills-off-diversity-and-inclusion It's a pity.

More than a pity. ICANN's footprint is worldwide. Yet here is ICANN dancing to a foul tune of hate, bias, and discrimination being played by exactly one of the more than 150 national governments.

That might make those other countries wonder "what tune can our country play to make ICANN dance to our policy whims?"

And it might add to the skepticism of people in those other countries who wonder whether ICANN is really an aspect of US hegemony.

The process of fracturing the Internet into regional, cultural, religious, or corporate internets is slow - but this move by ICANN is, in my eyes, a big wedge and sledge that significantly weakens the bonds that hold ICANN and the Internet together.

One might ask "Who in ICANN decided on this change?" And "why?".

--karl--

ICANN is a US corporation (Californian isn't it still)? So it can't be surprising that the local political sphere creates waves within it.

There was a sort of conceit that its legal jurisdiction as a US (nfp!) corporation is a good thing as it provides a sound legal framework that ensures that the global communities trying to achieve consensus over managing UIRs can do so separately to the exigencies and needs of US jurisdiction of ICANN under US jurisdiction.

Too many now working through ICANN let alone at ICANN treat ICANN as the voice of the community rather than a disposable shell whose only remit and purpose is to serve the myriad communities around the world who deploy UIRs to manage and serve Internet user experiences.

Rather important I think that the reaction to this is that those global communities stop being mesmerised by ICANN as a corporate body and instead focus on what they really need to achieve to ensure the Internet is for everyone. If ICANN fits a purpose to serve that then wonderful. If things have moved on then those functions can be handled in other ways and in alternative structures.

I don't see this wording change as so significant as to require a rewrite of ICANN today but also I don't see Internet fragmentation as a function of diversity of management organisations of UIRs rather the contrary as a reaction to over centralisation.

-- Christian de Larrinaga _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org <mailto:at-large@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org <mailto:at-large-leave@icann.org>

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- Christian de Larrinaga _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org <mailto:at-large@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org <mailto:at-large-leave@icann.org>

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

On 20/05/2025 15:11, Antony Van Couvering via At-Large wrote:

ALAC doesn’t know its power because it has never tested its power. To date, it has politely stayed in its lane. Why is this?

Surely the conscience of the organization, as I’ve seen ALAC described on this list, should be showing the board and the staff their failings in stark terms, and challenging them to do better, nagging them constantly, as consciences do. Consciences are not polite.

I am reminded of the joke about the politician who struggled with his conscience: he won.

But at least he had to struggle.

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect between ICANN management and the industry despite the best efforts of ICANN staff and ALAC. A few weeks ago, I only found out that the economist that ICANN had hired had left ICANN in July 2024. There had been no accouncement or no indication that he had been replaced. Given that the new round of gTLDs is coming up, having someone with a clue about Economics might be necessary after the 30 million domain name first year expectation of ICANN for the 2012 round. I also e-mailed two ICANN OCTO people about Domain Metrica and its lack of historical depth. During one of the many Covid lockdowns, I was bored and decided to make sense of the ICANN registry reports back to 2001. The quality of the registry reports published by ICANN was not consistent (different formats, missing IANA-ID numbers, text, Excel spreadsheets printed as PDFs etc.) Despite that, it was possible to build a table of all gTLD and registars data back to 2001. That's historical depth. To date, the ICANN OCTO people haven't even replied. One of the issues that has come up again and again in the At Large/CPWG discussions is the importance of resellers in the market. Despite ICANN paying lip service to the reseller issue, to be diplomatic about it, ICANN really doesn't understand the whole registry-registrar-reseller model. Every month, I publish the HosterStats Registrars and Resellers report that covers the gTLD market by registrars and resellers with their gTLD domain name counts and their monthly transactions. (95% of the gTLD market is handled by approximately 7K brands. There are more drop catcher registrars than retail registrars.) The ICANN registry-registrar model was great for the 1990s but it has not evolved. The standard upgrade path of web developer - web hoster - ICANN registrar no longer exists in the same way as it did in the early 2000s. What is happening now is that the upgrade path is web developer - web hoster - ccTLD registrar. The ccTLDs, as they develop, are overtaking the gTLDs in their home markets and the legacy gTLDs are becoming less relevant. The reseller market is *the* market in many countries with no accredited ICANN registrars because many web hosters in these countries outsource their registration activity to ICANN registrars in other countries. Some countries have more hosted gTLD domain names in other countries than their own country. Some of the ICANN commissioned reports (MEAC/LAC/Africa) completely missed this because the data and patterns are so hard to measure and the domain names of these countries are often not hosted in the country or even in the same ICANN region. The GDPR appeasement and the banjaxing of WHOIS hasn't helped either. Despite the whole DEI thing and the aspirations about developing countries, the local infrastructure either isn't well developed or the local web hosting industries have gone off and focused on their ccTLDs at the expense of the gTLDs. Some countries have less than 100 (that's not a typo) gTLD websites hosted. Every month I run a survey of all gTLD websites and some ccTLDs (over 250 million domain names including some ccTLDs) and break down the results by country and by web hosting provider. To date, the gTLD web hosting providers for just 1.27% of gTLD websites are pending identification. While ALAC does a lot of good work, the reality is that it is a very complex landscape of bungalows and skyscrapers. ICANN doesn't seem to understand it. ALAC barely understands it. And the market seems to be moving away from the gTLDs and thus away from ICANN. Most gTLD websites are hosted on US IP space. Hong Kong hosts more gTLD websites than the rest of China. That's partially a story abour RIRs that has gone largely unnoticed by ALAC. ICANN did have some people watching the outcome of that. Many of China's websites are hosted in US IP space. All this goes largely unnoticed by ALAC. DEI, and the editing of ICANN policy documents, is the least of ALAC's problems. But it does provide a bread and circuses effect. It won't change the gap between the Internet infrastructure of the developing countries compared to developed countries. How can ALAC change that? Regards...jmcc

...

On May 20, 2025, at 6:27 AM, Glenn McKnight <mcknight.glenn@gmail.com> wrote:

I think we have a range of opinions on ICANN as to its efforts of promoting DEI and a stalwart for multistakeholderism.  The critics are quick to point out ICANN's whitewashing and tokenism vs the potential to become truly a bottom up organization.   Beyond the ethnic and geographical representation, we have huge swaths of underrepresented groups ie.  Under 18 year olds, seniors, people of poverty and Persons with Disabilities, First Nations etc etc . We have to ask ourselves honestly   Is  Atlarge enabling ICANN to achieve its mission?  or we are just patsies for a closed and self serving group.  Perhaps a bit of both . G Glenn McKnight, MA Virtual School of Internet Governance Chief Information Officer www.virtualsig.org <http://www.virtualsig.org/> *YOUR SOURCE FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE EDUCATION * *Mobile  437-237-4655*

On Tue, 20 May 2025 at 09:15, Christian de Larrinaga via At-Large <at- large@icann.org <mailto:at-large@icann.org>> wrote:

puff puff from all directions. This really is a land of the magic dragons C

Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc <mailto:avc@avc.vc>> writes:

> One meaningless non-statement by ICANN has inspired people on this list to make long posts about principles. > > Meanwhile others (or maybe the same ones) are working diligently on > NomCom to find yet more go-along, get-along board members to > rubber-stamp ICANN staff decisions. > > You’ll know you’re getting somewhere when ICANN starts threatening > your funding. So long as you have pleasant staff members > “co-ordinating” and “assisting” activities and meetings with a smile, > you know ICANN is happy with what you do. In the meantime, you can > expect more betrayals, because strong statements about principles on > the At-Large listserv are like trying to blow over windmills with > gusts of air. > > How about a demand from ALAC that the CEO or (gasp!) the General Counsel must go? > > At least they’d read it. > >> On May 20, 2025, at 02:24, Christian de Larrinaga via At-Large <at-large@icann.org <mailto:at-large@icann.org>> wrote: >> >>  >> >> Karl Auerbach via At-Large <at-large@icann.org <mailto:at- large@icann.org>> writes: >> >>>> On 5/19/25 5:21 AM, Lutz Donnerhacke via At-Large wrote: >>>> https://domainincite.com/31049-icann-kills-off-diversity-and- inclusion <https://domainincite.com/31049-icann-kills-off- diversity-and-inclusion> >>>> It's a pity. >>> >>> More than a pity.  ICANN's footprint is worldwide.  Yet here is ICANN >>> dancing to a foul tune of hate, bias, and discrimination being played >>> by exactly one of the more than 150 national governments. >>> >>> That might make those other countries wonder "what tune can our >>> country play to make ICANN dance to our policy whims?" >>> >>> And it might add to the skepticism of people in those other countries >>> who wonder whether ICANN is really an aspect of US hegemony. >>> >>> The process of fracturing the Internet into regional, cultural, >>> religious, or corporate internets is slow - but this move by ICANN is, >>> in my eyes, a big wedge and sledge that significantly weakens the >>> bonds that hold ICANN and the Internet together. >>> >>> One might ask "Who in ICANN decided on this change?"  And "why?". >>> >>>     --karl-- >> >> >> ICANN is a US corporation (Californian isn't it still)? So it can't be >> surprising that the local political sphere creates waves within it. >> >> There was a sort of conceit that its legal jurisdiction as a US (nfp!) >> corporation is a good thing as it provides a sound legal framework that >> ensures that the global communities trying to achieve consensus over >> managing UIRs can do so separately to the exigencies and needs of US >> jurisdiction of ICANN under US jurisdiction. >> >> Too many now working through ICANN let alone at ICANN treat ICANN as the >> voice of the community rather than a disposable shell whose only remit >> and purpose is to serve the myriad communities around the world who >> deploy UIRs to manage and serve Internet user experiences. >> >> Rather important I think that the reaction to this is that those global >> communities stop being mesmerised by ICANN as a corporate body and >> instead focus on what they really need to achieve to ensure the Internet >> is for everyone. If ICANN fits a purpose to serve that then >> wonderful. If things have moved on then those functions can be handled >> in other ways and in alternative structures. >> >> I don't see this wording change as so significant as to require a >> rewrite of ICANN today but also I don't see Internet fragmentation as a >> function of diversity of management organisations of UIRs rather the >> contrary as a reaction to over centralisation. >> >> >> >> -- >> Christian de Larrinaga >> _______________________________________________ >> At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org <mailto:at- large@icann.org> >> To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org <mailto:at-large-leave@icann.org> >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http:// atlarge.icann.org/> >> _______________________________________________ >> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of >> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy >> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/ privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of >> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https:// www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the >> Mailman link above to change your membership status or >> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style >> delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), >> and so on.

-- Christian de Larrinaga _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org <mailto:at- large@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org <mailto:at-large-leave@icann.org>

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http:// atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https:// www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/ policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/ privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com ********************************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

On 21/05/2025 11:03, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:

John

Do you have a link to this analysis you've initiated?

I don't know what ICANN understands whether that be the staff bit of the corporation or the supporting organisations such as ALAC.

But starting with good data seems the right approach thanks

Will try put some summary data together as a web page or post on the list later tonight, Christian. The problem with ICANN's approach, especially with the new gTLDs, is that a lot of the infrastructure on which the new gTLD websites will, theoretically, be hosted in developing countries is still developing. The natural result will be websites hosted outside these countries and money that could have stayed in the economies of these countries going outside it. Regards...jmcc

Christian

John McCormac via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> writes:

...

On 20/05/2025 15:11, Antony Van Couvering via At-Large wrote:

...

ALAC doesn’t know its power because it has never tested its power. To date, it has politely stayed in its lane. Why is this? Surely the conscience of the organization, as I’ve seen ALAC described on this list, should be showing the board and the staff their failings in stark terms, and challenging them to do better, nagging them constantly, as consciences do. Consciences are not polite. I am reminded of the joke about the politician who struggled with his conscience: he won. But at least he had to struggle.

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect between ICANN management and the industry despite the best efforts of ICANN staff and ALAC.

A few weeks ago, I only found out that the economist that ICANN had hired had left ICANN in July 2024. There had been no accouncement or no indication that he had been replaced. Given that the new round of gTLDs is coming up, having someone with a clue about Economics might be necessary after the 30 million domain name first year expectation of ICANN for the 2012 round.

I also e-mailed two ICANN OCTO people about Domain Metrica and its lack of historical depth. During one of the many Covid lockdowns, I was bored and decided to make sense of the ICANN registry reports back to 2001. The quality of the registry reports published by ICANN was not consistent (different formats, missing IANA-ID numbers, text, Excel spreadsheets printed as PDFs etc.) Despite that, it was possible to build a table of all gTLD and registars data back to 2001. That's historical depth. To date, the ICANN OCTO people haven't even replied.

One of the issues that has come up again and again in the At Large/CPWG discussions is the importance of resellers in the market. Despite ICANN paying lip service to the reseller issue, to be diplomatic about it, ICANN really doesn't understand the whole registry-registrar-reseller model.

Every month, I publish the HosterStats Registrars and Resellers report that covers the gTLD market by registrars and resellers with their gTLD domain name counts and their monthly transactions. (95% of the gTLD market is handled by approximately 7K brands. There are more drop catcher registrars than retail registrars.)

The ICANN registry-registrar model was great for the 1990s but it has not evolved. The standard upgrade path of web developer - web hoster - ICANN registrar no longer exists in the same way as it did in the early 2000s. What is happening now is that the upgrade path is web developer - web hoster - ccTLD registrar. The ccTLDs, as they develop, are overtaking the gTLDs in their home markets and the legacy gTLDs are becoming less relevant.

The reseller market is *the* market in many countries with no accredited ICANN registrars because many web hosters in these countries outsource their registration activity to ICANN registrars in other countries. Some countries have more hosted gTLD domain names in other countries than their own country. Some of the ICANN commissioned reports (MEAC/LAC/Africa) completely missed this because the data and patterns are so hard to measure and the domain names of these countries are often not hosted in the country or even in the same ICANN region. The GDPR appeasement and the banjaxing of WHOIS hasn't helped either.

Despite the whole DEI thing and the aspirations about developing countries, the local infrastructure either isn't well developed or the local web hosting industries have gone off and focused on their ccTLDs at the expense of the gTLDs.

Some countries have less than 100 (that's not a typo) gTLD websites hosted. Every month I run a survey of all gTLD websites and some ccTLDs (over 250 million domain names including some ccTLDs) and break down the results by country and by web hosting provider. To date, the gTLD web hosting providers for just 1.27% of gTLD websites are pending identification.

While ALAC does a lot of good work, the reality is that it is a very complex landscape of bungalows and skyscrapers. ICANN doesn't seem to understand it. ALAC barely understands it. And the market seems to be moving away from the gTLDs and thus away from ICANN.

Most gTLD websites are hosted on US IP space. Hong Kong hosts more gTLD websites than the rest of China. That's partially a story abour RIRs that has gone largely unnoticed by ALAC. ICANN did have some people watching the outcome of that. Many of China's websites are hosted in US IP space. All this goes largely unnoticed by ALAC.

DEI, and the editing of ICANN policy documents, is the least of ALAC's problems. But it does provide a bread and circuses effect. It won't change the gap between the Internet infrastructure of the developing countries compared to developed countries. How can ALAC change that?

Regards...jmcc

...

...

On May 20, 2025, at 6:27 AM, Glenn McKnight <mcknight.glenn@gmail.com> wrote:

I think we have a range of opinions on ICANN as to its efforts of promoting DEI and a stalwart for multistakeholderism.  The critics are quick to point out ICANN's whitewashing and tokenism vs the potential to become truly a bottom up organization.   Beyond the ethnic and geographical representation, we have huge swaths of underrepresented groups ie.  Under 18 year olds, seniors, people of poverty and Persons with Disabilities, First Nations etc etc . We have to ask ourselves honestly   Is  Atlarge enabling ICANN to achieve its mission?  or we are just patsies for a closed and self serving group.  Perhaps a bit of both . G Glenn McKnight, MA Virtual School of Internet Governance Chief Information Officer www.virtualsig.org <http://www.virtualsig.org/> *YOUR SOURCE FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE EDUCATION * *Mobile  437-237-4655*

On Tue, 20 May 2025 at 09:15, Christian de Larrinaga via At-Large <at- large@icann.org <mailto:at-large@icann.org>> wrote:

puff puff from all directions. This really is a land of the magic dragons C

Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc <mailto:avc@avc.vc>> writes:

> One meaningless non-statement by ICANN has inspired people on this list to make long posts about principles. > > Meanwhile others (or maybe the same ones) are working diligently on > NomCom to find yet more go-along, get-along board members to > rubber-stamp ICANN staff decisions. > > You’ll know you’re getting somewhere when ICANN starts threatening > your funding. So long as you have pleasant staff members > “co-ordinating” and “assisting” activities and meetings with a smile, > you know ICANN is happy with what you do. In the meantime, you can > expect more betrayals, because strong statements about principles on > the At-Large listserv are like trying to blow over windmills with > gusts of air. > > How about a demand from ALAC that the CEO or (gasp!) the General Counsel must go? > > At least they’d read it. > >> On May 20, 2025, at 02:24, Christian de Larrinaga via At-Large <at-large@icann.org <mailto:at-large@icann.org>> wrote: >> >>  >> >> Karl Auerbach via At-Large <at-large@icann.org <mailto:at- large@icann.org>> writes: >> >>>> On 5/19/25 5:21 AM, Lutz Donnerhacke via At-Large wrote: >>>> https://domainincite.com/31049-icann-kills-off-diversity-and- inclusion <https://domainincite.com/31049-icann-kills-off- diversity-and-inclusion> >>>> It's a pity. >>> >>> More than a pity.  ICANN's footprint is worldwide.  Yet here is ICANN >>> dancing to a foul tune of hate, bias, and discrimination being played >>> by exactly one of the more than 150 national governments. >>> >>> That might make those other countries wonder "what tune can our >>> country play to make ICANN dance to our policy whims?" >>> >>> And it might add to the skepticism of people in those other countries >>> who wonder whether ICANN is really an aspect of US hegemony. >>> >>> The process of fracturing the Internet into regional, cultural, >>> religious, or corporate internets is slow - but this move by ICANN is, >>> in my eyes, a big wedge and sledge that significantly weakens the >>> bonds that hold ICANN and the Internet together. >>> >>> One might ask "Who in ICANN decided on this change?"  And "why?". >>> >>>     --karl-- >> >> >> ICANN is a US corporation (Californian isn't it still)? So it can't be >> surprising that the local political sphere creates waves within it. >> >> There was a sort of conceit that its legal jurisdiction as a US (nfp!) >> corporation is a good thing as it provides a sound legal framework that >> ensures that the global communities trying to achieve consensus over >> managing UIRs can do so separately to the exigencies and needs of US >> jurisdiction of ICANN under US jurisdiction. >> >> Too many now working through ICANN let alone at ICANN treat ICANN as the >> voice of the community rather than a disposable shell whose only remit >> and purpose is to serve the myriad communities around the world who >> deploy UIRs to manage and serve Internet user experiences. >> >> Rather important I think that the reaction to this is that those global >> communities stop being mesmerised by ICANN as a corporate body and >> instead focus on what they really need to achieve to ensure the Internet >> is for everyone. If ICANN fits a purpose to serve that then >> wonderful. If things have moved on then those functions can be handled >> in other ways and in alternative structures. >> >> I don't see this wording change as so significant as to require a >> rewrite of ICANN today but also I don't see Internet fragmentation as a >> function of diversity of management organisations of UIRs rather the >> contrary as a reaction to over centralisation. >> >> >> >> -- >> Christian de Larrinaga >> _______________________________________________ >> At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org <mailto:at- large@icann.org> >> To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org <mailto:at-large-leave@icann.org> >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http:// atlarge.icann.org/> >> _______________________________________________ >> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of >> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list >> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy >> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/ privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of >> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https:// www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the >> Mailman link above to change your membership status or >> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style >> delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), >> and so on.

-- Christian de Larrinaga _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org <mailto:at- large@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org <mailto:at-large-leave@icann.org>

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http:// atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https:// www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/ policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/ privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com **********************************************************

-- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com ********************************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 1:01 PM John McCormac via At-Large < at-large@icann.org> wrote:

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect between ICANN management and the industry despite the best efforts of ICANN staff and ALAC.

ICANN, which regularly reminds us all that it is not a regulator, asserts its policies through contracts with registries and registrars. As far as it's concerned, nothing further down the supply chain matters, beyond whatever influence the non-contracted-party constituencies can assert through GNSO (such as trademark protection). Certainly there is no heed paid to the non-registrant Internet user which is completely outside the revenue chain. As for ALAC having made "best efforts" ... I'll leave that one alone. Remember the convulsions ICANN went through over "vertical integration", the idea that an organization could be both registry and registrar? ICANN's registrars fought so incredibly hard against the concept that a registry could cut them out and sell direct to the public. Whether they had value to add to the transaction was irrelevant, registrars insisted on being part of the chain whether they were needed or not. The only other industry where resellers similarly have forced themselves into the transaction whether they are needed or not, as far as I can tell, is auto dealerships.

One of the issues that has come up again and again in the At Large/CPWG discussions is the importance of resellers in the market. Despite ICANN paying lip service to the reseller issue, to be diplomatic about it, ICANN really doesn't understand the whole registry-registrar-reseller model.

Please demonstrate *why* ICANN even needs to acknowledge this model, let alone understand it. To me it's the registrars that are the domain resellers in a practical sense. What you call resellers are to me simply authorized sales agents of the registrars, and I personally don't see the need for ICANN to care about them. Even moreso I wonder how ALAC and CPWG think that the existence of resellers matters to the global public interest. Sales agents of registrars are bound by ICANN registrar agreements. The agreements govern how domains may be sold, and I don't understand why it matters whether sales are made by registrar employees or contracted agents. The agents are still bound by the agreements. What more is worth wringing hands over? (Disclaimer: In the early 2000s I was a principal in a consultancy that was one of Tucows' first OpenSRS domain resellers. I'm very familiar with the model, which is how I know that it's existence is benign and has minimal need of ICANN's attention. Registrars are accountable for the actions of their agents.) The ICANN registry-registrar model was great for the 1990s but it has not

evolved.

Plenty about ICANN has not evolved. But since the DNS itself is a legacy technology, I am challenged to understand why it *needs* to evolve any more than we need new innovation in faxes or wired Ethernet. The only innovation here that matters to be is in scaling and reliability, which are technical issues. Sure the Internet still needs to translate names to numbers. But in a world where access to Internet services is increasingly handled in the foreground by search engines and now AI, the world cares less and less about the need for memorable or indeed even human-parsed domain names. ICANN loves to talk about the diversity and proliferation of TLDs as evidence of "competition", while willfully ignoring the big-picture competition between all "memorable" domains and other methods through which Internet users connect to the services they seek.

The standard upgrade path of web developer - web hoster - ICANN registrar no longer exists in the same way as it did in the early 2000s. What is happening now is that the upgrade path is web developer - web hoster - ccTLD registrar. The ccTLDs, as they develop, are overtaking the gTLDs in their home markets and the legacy gTLDs are becoming less relevant.

Perhaps that's the case relative to each other, but I suggest that *all* TLDs are legacy -- even the ones being created in future rounds. To me this is little difference from the the fact that we're still creating new area codes even though POTS is a legacy tech too. The reseller market is *the* market in many countries with no accredited ICANN

registrars because many web hosters in these countries outsource their registration activity to ICANN registrars in other countries.

To me that evokes a massive "so what?" Becoming a reseller means having a relationship with a registrar. Becoming a registrar means having a relationship with ICANN. If you're only selling a few hundred domains a year the choice is clear, even if both relationships have similar rules for selling.

Despite the whole DEI thing and the aspirations about developing countries, the local infrastructure either isn't well developed or the local web hosting industries have gone off and focused on their ccTLDs at the expense of the gTLDs.

I see this as a feature not a bug. ccTLDs may have policies that are tuned to local sensibilities in a way that ICANN's can't. Then again they may not, but that too is a local choice. While ALAC does a lot of good work, the reality is that it is a very complex

landscape of bungalows and skyscrapers. ICANN doesn't seem to understand it. ALAC barely understands it. And the market seems to be moving away from the gTLDs and thus away from ICANN.

ALAC's role is not, to me, the probing of business models and domain supply chains. It's ensuring that the public is served by a DNS that is reliable and resistant to abuse. Indeed, I assert (and have asserted for a long time) that the rampant mission creep that has ALAC getting involved into issues irrelevant to the broad public interest have retarded its ability to fulfill its actual bylaw mandate. If there are deficiencies in the domain-name supply chain that lead to the DNS being unreliable or untrustworthy from the public PoV that is most certainly ALAC's business. Generally those issues may lead to suggested changes in contract language and/or enforcement. To me anything more is beyond scope. And if some of the problem can be traced to realms beyond ALAC's influence (ie, the ccTLDs), there's not much that can be done to address that beyond public education programs. Mind, you, such public education programs could be very useful. Imagine if all the resources wasted to date on Universal Acceptance were used instead to inform the public about the differences between gTLDs and ccTLDs, and how .co runs under different rules than .com ... Cheers, Evan

On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 1:17 PM John McCormac <jmcc@hosterstats.com> wrote: The registrars were competing with the registries, Evan,

A Good Thing, in my opinion.

The registry had an unfair market position and could cut the legs from under the registrars at any time. The registrars do most of the heavy lifting on marketing the TLDs and creating awareness. Without them, the TLDs would be much smaller.

So what? ICANN's role is one of managing the DNS, not maximizing the number of domains in the wild. Each TLD should be allowed the freedom to do what is best for itself -- whether to use the network of registrars or sell direct to the public. If registrars are as useful as you say that choice should be easy, what's wrong is to remove the choice. What business is it of ICANN's to dictate the supply chain if its regulations are being met? Once again, this kind of mission creep is wholly unnecessary. ICANN does not owe registrars any business.

One of the issues that has come up again and again in the At Large/

...

CPWG discussions is the importance of resellers in the market. Despite ICANN paying lip service to the reseller issue, to be diplomaticabout it, ICANN really doesn't understand the whole registry-registrar-reseller model.

Please demonstrate _why_ ICANN even needs to acknowledge this model, let alone understand it.

Because it is no longer the 1990s and the market for TLDs is more complex with a lot more potential TLDs for users.

You haven't answered the question. Even if the model situation is more complex, that does not demonstrate why ICANN needs to care.

One of the problems with the current model is that it, perhaps unintentiaonally, limits the development of the Internet market at a local level in developing countries.

You keep avoiding the basic question of WHY should ICANN care about market development. I maintain that function is wholly out of scope. ICANN's revenue comes from domain sales, which makes its role of promoting domain sales a complete conflict of interest with any role of public-interest management of said domains. Maybe it's in the public interest to have FEWER domains. We'll never know, that question is not allowed to be asked. All you're doing is helping to prove the assertion that ICANN is really just an industry association to promote the maximizing of domain sales, acting under the pretense of custodian of the DNS. That is certainly consistent with what it currently does, but it is also why nobody outside the ICANN bubble sees it as an example of good governance. ICANN has quite likely killed the concept of multistakeholderism all by itself, at least by that name.

When this model was created, the ccTLDs often were not competing with the gTLDs because they were run from the Computer Science departments of universities and had a lot of restrictive rules. The gTLDs did not have these rules and consequently the gTLDs often dominated the growth in local country level markets at the expense of the local ccTLDs.

I suggest your analysis is wrong. Generics -- mainly one generic, dot-com -- thrived not because of lack of regulation, but because most web destinations did not want to artificially limit their audience and saw dot-com as being the location of first resort. The dot.us ccTLD was inexpensive and had few regulations, yet it withers to this day. I may be one of the few people in this field who think that Postel did society an enormous amount of damage in the way that TLDs were originally distributed. That damage is beyond repair and the issues you describe are a direct result of bad decisions made long ago. In the mid-2000s, large-scale Domain Tasting happened and it created an

artificial shortage of "good" domain names in the gTLDs. This led to a move to ccTLDs and also to the 2012 round of new gTLDs.

The 2012 round was an exercise in greed and opportunism. Brands were shaken down to have redundant domains lest their trademarks get abused in the new gTLDs. New takedown measures had to be deployed by ICANN for generics, yet ccTLDs could travel their own path here.

Large-scale Domain tasting ended after some legal cases and Google demonetising PPC advertising on newly registered domain names.

While elsewhere the influence of At-Large is overstated, here you neglect what is probably the biggest single policy victory of ALAC, ever; its forefront role in eliminating domain tasting. But the growth in ccTLDs continued and the gTLD growth was gradually

overtaken by ccTLDs in countries with healthy ccTLDs.

This no doubt came about once opportunists realized that under the right circumstances ccTLDs could be monetized like generics with fewer restrictions than ICANN imposed, leading to the growth of .co .tv .fm .nu .ly .me and so on. They also had the benefit of being just two letters. And unshackled from ICANN's politics, they didn't have to contend with BS such as vertical integration, they could make those business-model choices themselves. To this day some bypass registrars and sell direct to the public. By 2009, large-scale Domain Tasting in the gTLDs had ended and so too had

the artificially created demand for new gTLDs.

I disagree with this analysis too. Domain Tasting may have gone but was quickly replaced by an entire industry of domain speculation. Sites like Sedo exploded as the squatter market for domains has led to almost every [dictionary word].com being taken. The artificial scarcity continues.

Infrastructure doesn't get developed in developing countries because web hosters host outside that country because it is cheaper.

These hosters stay small and typically never become ICANN registrars.

To complete the vicious circle, money goes out of the economies of these developing countries to other more developed countries.

You've already stated that before and I continue to ask: So what?

Rather than driving the growth of the local Internet industry, these web hosters end up driving the growth of registrars and web hosters in other countries.

The ccTLDs in some of these developing countries still have to catch up but once a ccTLD gains critical mass, it will overtake the gTLDs in that market.

OK. So what?

What has been happening in some developed countries is that becoming an ICANN registrar is less important because the bulk of new registrations each month are in the local ccTLD. The registration of gTLDs is often outsourced to ICANN registrars that provide registration as a service. This means that the gTLDs, ICANN's revenue stream, is coming under pressure from two sides.

I continue to be amazed at how, inside the ICANN bubble, all competition is measured as being between TLDs and TLD regimes ... seemingly oblivious to the competition to ALL readable domains from web apps, QR codes, social media links, search engines, and now interactive AI. I welcome any kind of stats on THAT competition and resulting analysis. It will not be easy reading for the bubble. The one thing that is really keeping the gTLDs increasing is the position

of .COM and a lot of that is due to it being the de facto US ccTLD and the most globally recognised TLD.

The US already has a ccTLD but nobody uses it. Dot-com has always been seen as the "default" TLD, the closest thing we have to a flat namespace. In my experience people turn to other gTLDs and ccTLDs only if their first choice in .COM is taken -- which, thanks to squatters, is unfortunately usually the case. I encourage would-be registrants to use hyphens or other tricks to allow them to stay in .COM, which also happens to be one of the least expensive TLDs out there,. Keeping money in the economy of a developing country is a good thing because

it helps local businesses to grow and benefits the people there. It also encourages development of the economy and usage of local websites and services.

I'm not asking whether this is a good thing or bad. AGAIN: I am asking why this is an issue in which ICANN should be involved? There is a very limited understanding of how domain names are used and more

importantly, why people register domain names. Measuring user intent is almost impossible without talking to the registrants and then it becomes more like a Sentiment Analysis poll than an opinion poll.

Talk to a domain squatter and you'll quickly learn why people register domain names. So many of them style themselves as branding experts, attached to the wisdom that you can't have a good brand without a good (and usually permium-priced squatter's) domain. Most domain names will be deleted without ever being used. Twenty years ago,

the .COM had very strong first year renewals (approximately 72%) and now the rate has dropped to around 50% according to resent comments from Verisign. Some of that is down to discounting offers.

Much is also from business ideas or branding that don't pan out. You make the plan, you get the name but you can't get the funding. Or you research a new brand, get the domain just in case, but it never launches. These one-year registrations have nothing to do with domain sales practices. The advent of the smart phone effectively made the .MOBI gTLD largely

irrelevant due to the smart phone having good screen resolution.

No. The decline of .MOBI was due to the emergence of adaptive websites that did not need separate designs (and web addresses) for desktop and mobile versions. Even at good resolution, site layouts and navigation need to be very different for large and small screens.

...

To me that evokes a massive "so what?"

The current ICANN registrar model is similar in parts, at its most extreme, to a kind of absentee landlord system that imposes a kind of digital serfdom on those hosting businesses in developing countries that cannot afford to become ICANN accredited registrars.

How about just dispensing with registrars completely and let TLDs of all kinds just sell direct to the public? That eliminates all of this complaint, and the e-commerce platforms to enable this do exist.

To use an old phrase, ICANN risks unintentionally "Balkanising" the TLD market based on whether hosting businesses can afford to become ICANN accredited or not.

The DNS was "Balkanized" at the time Postel designed the TLD distribution system. Some TLDs under ICANN, some not. ICANN serving a regulatory role though it insists it's not a regulator. ccTLDs acting as generics and the public doesn't know the difference. No international treaty, anyone can break away at any time. The .su domain. It's all shit and it can't be repaired, yet it limps along. it's not worth the energy to complain. And much of the world has moved on.

In market terms, it breaks down the TLD market into countries where the gTLDs are the main TLDs and countries were the ccTLD is the main TLD.

Simply adding more analysis does not answer the question: So what? Why should I care? Why should ICANN care, such that it can solve whatever problem is identified?

Countries will shift to using their local ccTLD as their first choice TLD and gTLDs will plateau and become legacy.

People like me think that TLDs on the whole have become legacy already. What is the complaint? What is the problem to solve? Why should I care that it is solved? It would be good if ALAC understood what was happening and why it was

happening. Without that, ALAC is just a bystander that can be ignored.

On the matter of analysing domain business models, ALAC being a bystander is a good idea. Then it can concentrate on stability, reliability and trustworthiness of the DNS, rather than all of this awful mission creep. - Evan

* Barry Shein wrotes:

This aspect of new TLDs is profoundly amateurish and unprofessional along with encouraging the acquisition of strings which represent no activity whatsoever, cybersquatting challenges aside, but why create, as the legal phrase calls it: An attractive nuisance?

I say profoundly because as mentioned above major trademark registries had already rejected this model long before the internet even existed.

If there were ever an independent, external review of this system I believe this would be cited as prima facie evidence of collusion and self-dealing. Not in theory but in practice, and on a massive scale.

The problem of mapping a multidimensional space (trademarks are registered in distinct classes and in different regions) into a single dimension (second level domain) is well known. There is a solution for this problem: Disallow overloading second level domains with other meanings. Instead use a hierarchically structured approach within a special purpose TLD. So the TLD "trademark" (tm is reserved as a ccTLD according to the root zone design principles), which is subdivided into "<class>.<geo>.trademark", where you can register your trademark. The Registry for the "<geo>.trademark" should be the should trademark registration organisation in this region. Unfortunately, the "Intellectual Property" people were furious about this idea. They insist in "protecting" their self-claimed, arbitrary strings to be relevant for every other namespace. And then they complain about their self-invented collisions. From the rational, technical point of view, they should have no standing inside of the TLD "trademark", and ICANN should piss them off from GNSO. Lutz

There is nothing fundamental here: the human race can do and has done very well for dozens of millennia without domain names or trademarks. There is equally nothing sinful here: an established way of doing business is challenged by current events, and the incumbents scramble while new entrants seek to break into the business. The trademark industry estimated that there would be millions of trademark violations in the new gTLDs. There weren’t. The trademark industry estimated that brands would need to spend millions to protect “their” names. They didn’t. The reason there are issues are: (1) domain names are unique; they wouldn’t work if they weren’t. Trademarks are not unique, they wouldn’t work if they were. (2) First-come, first-served is a good way to fairly allocate a resource, especially compared to all the other ways — e.g., reserving names for rich entities claiming dubious global rights according to rules dreamed up by these same entities. This is not a failing of the domain name system, this is a problem of a global system being mapped onto multiple regional systems with all kinds of special rules top benefit those with the power to get special rules made up for them. It was never up to the domain name system to solve this mess, as evidenced by centuries of trademark lawyers failing to solve it even with no domain names to muddy it up. When the slave trade ended in the UK, the slavers set up such a howl that the British government had to pay them vast sums to get them to shut up. The trademark lobby didn’t do quite as well, but their howls were effective in protecting established trademarks from being infringed in their class, within their jurisdictional reach. Which they would have been anyway, because that’s the law, which though admittedly cumbersome does thoroughly protect trademarks. Trademark holders weren’t howling about rights, they were howling about cost. Howling is what incumbents do when events threaten their protected profits. Nothing fundamental here, nothing sinful. Nothing new at all — not even anything remarkable. .

On May 22, 2025, at 12:19 PM, Barry Shein via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> wrote:

...

The 2012 round was an exercise in greed and opportunism. Brands were shaken down to have redundant domains lest their trademarks get abused in the new gTLDs. New takedown measures had to be deployed by ICANN for generics, yet ccTLDs could travel their own path here.

This has to be one of the most fundamental sins of the current system.

For example, you can't register a trademark for a string in multiple classes (e.g., WIPO or US IPTO) just to prevent others from registering.

No doubt it happens but it's very weak legally.

There's a reason for that.

It's not an oversight: they, the trademark registries, foresaw the problem.

One of the selling points for new TLDs was that companies whose mark legally coincided, for example Delta Faucets and Delta Airlines, or Ford Motor Company and Ford Modeling Agency, had no outlet to register DELTA.something or FORD.something with the very limited set of TLDs.

Doubly so for new companies or products which didn't even exist when these domains were grabbed defensively.

It's perfectly reasonable -- I realize there are some exceptions where brand confusion might still occur -- for Delta Faucets and Delta Airlines to register and defend the trademark "Delta" in their respective usage classes (faucets vs airline) without conflict.

But no similar provision was ever made for domains.

Delta Airlines could register DELTA.FAUCETS first (if that TLD existed) and Delta Faucets was just out of luck other than perhaps offering to buy the domain from the airline company or possibly trying to manufacture some sort of UDRP (et al) action or similar. A route available perhaps to highly funded concerns but not most.

Or maybe try to register something less appealing, perhaps DELTA.XYZ if the airline hadn't already snapped that up also.

My examples are very large, well-known corporations but substitute with newer, smaller concerns.

This aspect of new TLDs is profoundly amateurish and unprofessional along with encouraging the acquisition of strings which represent no activity whatsoever, cybersquatting challenges aside, but why create, as the legal phrase calls it: An attractive nuisance?

I say profoundly because as mentioned above major trademark registries had already rejected this model long before the internet even existed.

If there were ever an independent, external review of this system I believe this would be cited as prima facie evidence of collusion and self-dealing. Not in theory but in practice, and on a massive scale.

-- -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

There is no famous “Joe’s Pizza” in New York. You may be thinking of Ray’s Pizza, but even in this case the question of who was first, and who was famous, and who was famous first are hotly disputed and in fact the original one may be an invention. If domain names are worth nothing, as you say, why would anyone engage in “rent-seeking” behavior? The fact is that a memorable name that leads you to information / goods / services / whatever is valuable. Naturally, people seek to profit. I suspect you find this objectionable, but I think you would also agree that it’s inevitable. Your plan seeks to eliminate this behavior by making domain names cumbersome, tedious, and subject to rules of categorization dreamed up by IP lawyers. This would definitely get rid of the behavior because no-one would want one, or use one, as the dismal results of categorizing registrations in the .us domain amply illustrate. Or look at how .uk, .ph and a multitude of other ccTLDs have dumped their cumbersome functional subdomains and seen an instant take-up of registrations at the second level. It is obvious even to a casual observer that consumers prefer short, memorable names over some complicated set of categories. If your solution to end speculative behavior is to so maim and disfigure domain names that no-one would want one, then I grant you, your idea would work. It would help your case if you could show some actual harm to consumers on any scale that is actually endemic to domain names and not the internet in general. There were dire predictions and prophesies of apocalypse if consumers were allowed to have a great choice of names, but where is the calamity? If you really want to charge up this hill, you can dust off Simon Higgs’ paper which outlines it all in great detail. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-higgs-tld-cat/. It got no support thirty years ago and I don’t think it would now, but it describes what you suggest. Now, who exactly would be in charge of deciding which category which businesses should go into? How does that work?

On May 23, 2025, at 8:46 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 11:07 AM Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc <mailto:avc@avc.vc>> wrote:

...

The reason there are issues are: (1) domain names are unique; they wouldn’t work if they weren’t. Trademarks are not unique, they wouldn’t work if they were. (2) First-come, first-served is a good way to fairly allocate a resource, especially compared to all the other ways — e.g., reserving names for rich entities claiming dubious global rights according to rules dreamed up by these same entities.

First come first served is an awful way to allocate this resource, because it invites rent-seeking, ticket-scalping behaviour that favours the tech-savvy over both the producers and consumers of goods. Thus the lovely industry of speculative domain squatters that extracts value from the DNS.

One of the key elements of all trademark regimes that Barry failed to mention was "use it or lose it". You can't register a trademark without evidence of use, and an existing trademark can be voided if left unused. This element is absent in all domains, you can keep it so long as you pay the annual rent. Your trademark is yours as long as you use it, but miss the rent payment on your domain and ... gone, possibly snapped up by a competitor.

As for the uniqueness of domains, mapped to trademarks ... personally I never saw this as a problem for brands so much as for end-users. And I am reminded that trademarks were designed to reduce consumer confusion over anything else.

Just as Barry needed the industry descriptor to differentiate between the two Deltas in his narrative, registering as DELTAAIR.* or DELTAFAUCET.* (which is actually the case) is a trivial, unambiguous solution. The land-grab over the dictionary word "Delta" thus becomes purely a matter of vanity, since to the consumer DELTA.* is meaningless without context. As a result, the owner of DELTA.* ends up being who got to register first or offered the most resale money to an original renter.

The problem with brands to me extends to those not unique enough to be trademarked, an issue totally off ICANN's radar because it doesn't make money for lawyers or branding experts. But it matters to both Internet users and Internet destinations.

The most famous Joe's Pizza is in New York. But the owner of JOESPIZZA.COM <http://joespizza.com/> is a New York style pizza place in Los Angeles, forcing the original to use JOESPIZZANYC.COM <http://joespizzanyc.com/>. The Joe's Pizza in St. Louis needs to use orderjoes.com <http://orderjoes.com/>. And all of the other dozens (maybe hundreds) of "Joe's Pizza" locations need to find similarly non-intuitive names. Adding a .PIZZA TLD enables a single extra entry for JOES.PIZZA (located who-knows-where?) and ccTLDs add one more per country but that's it, the rest of the Joe's Pizza domains there are non-intuitive too.

A forward-thinking DNS might have come up with a geographical hierarchy to handle this and similar consumer confusion, but instead all we got was the chaotic results from first come first served. That most certainly is a failing of the DNS.

This, of course, opened the door to search results that would always give you the Joe's Pizza nearest your locatiion regardless of its URL, so in that world the domain became irrelevant. And now that irrelevance has spread to all other industries too. Type "Delta" into Google and it dutifully presents both Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets (as well as the city of Delta, British Columbia).

So the problem for all of this is solved, but the solution is external to the DNS. Domains are still used, but what they are is now irrelevant.

- Evan

Karl, I completely agree. Domain names are used less and less as navigation, whatever that means anymore, and hence as marketing either. That in itself should lessen speculative behavior. They do, however, continue to carry some weight: (1) If you have a website with a “custom” domain name, you are seen as more serious than someone who doesn’t, and in many circles not having one means that you are definitely not serious. (2) Same for an email address, but less so (3) Domain names and associated websites are seen as sources of authority for the business / person in question. This is actually more and more important with AI hallucinating over 50% of the time. (4) A good name implies a prosperous company, which is why you see companies “migrating” to shorter / better versions of their name. (5) You have rights with a domain name. If you pay your bill on time, you get to keep your name, and say pretty much what you want (tyrants permitting). Facebook, Google, or any proprietary platform can’t throw you off. You may not be able to profit much, but you can keep your voice. I personally believe this is an undervalued aspect. (6) Better uptime I’m sure there are other reasons why domain names are important to some slices of society, e.g., large institutions, as well as some lingering marketing advantages overall. But as the magic gateway to commerce? That ship sailed a long time ago.

On May 23, 2025, at 3:06 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:

The domain name system, or rather the way it is used, has had a qualitative shift over the last couple of decades.

Of course there remain people and companies who are still using, what I believe to be an increasingly obsolete concept, that domain names carry semantic meanings to users.

In 2017 I wrote about this change:

Domain Names Are Fading From User View - https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/fading-domain-names/

As a person who is a card-carrying intellectual property lawyer I still see some hyperbolics from trademark practitioners. But I am seeing fewer and fewer of these.

Part of this is that ICANN and various laws have basically given trademark protectors a dominant power to shape domain name issuance and holding practices so that trademark protection tends to win most disputes with minimal expense and effort.

Another part, and a part that is growing, is that simply put, users see domain names less often, and even in those diminishing number of cases where users utter domain names, the domain name "words" are less often used as a kind of directory or search service.

--karl--

On 5/23/25 2:06 PM, Antony Van Couvering via At-Large wrote:

...

There is no famous “Joe’s Pizza” in New York. You may be thinking of Ray’s Pizza, but even in this case the question of who was first, and who was famous, and who was famous first are hotly disputed and in fact the original one may be an invention.

If domain names are worth nothing, as you say, why would anyone engage in “rent-seeking” behavior? The fact is that a memorable name that leads you to information / goods / services / whatever is valuable. Naturally, people seek to profit. I suspect you find this objectionable, but I think you would also agree that it’s inevitable.

Your plan seeks to eliminate this behavior by making domain names cumbersome, tedious, and subject to rules of categorization dreamed up by IP lawyers. This would definitely get rid of the behavior because no-one would want one, or use one, as the dismal results of categorizing registrations in the .us domain amply illustrate. Or look at how .uk, .ph and a multitude of other ccTLDs have dumped their cumbersome functional subdomains and seen an instant take-up of registrations at the second level. It is obvious even to a casual observer that consumers prefer short, memorable names over some complicated set of categories. If your solution to end speculative behavior is to so maim and disfigure domain names that no-one would want one, then I grant you, your idea would work.

It would help your case if you could show some actual harm to consumers on any scale that is actually endemic to domain names and not the internet in general. There were dire predictions and prophesies of apocalypse if consumers were allowed to have a great choice of names, but where is the calamity?

If you really want to charge up this hill, you can dust off Simon Higgs’ paper which outlines it all in great detail. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-higgs-tld-cat/. It got no support thirty years ago and I don’t think it would now, but it describes what you suggest.

Now, who exactly would be in charge of deciding which category which businesses should go into? How does that work?

...

On May 23, 2025, at 8:46 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> <mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 11:07 AM Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc <mailto:avc@avc.vc>> wrote:

...

The reason there are issues are: (1) domain names are unique; they wouldn’t work if they weren’t. Trademarks are not unique, they wouldn’t work if they were. (2) First-come, first-served is a good way to fairly allocate a resource, especially compared to all the other ways — e.g., reserving names for rich entities claiming dubious global rights according to rules dreamed up by these same entities.

First come first served is an awful way to allocate this resource, because it invites rent-seeking, ticket-scalping behaviour that favours the tech-savvy over both the producers and consumers of goods. Thus the lovely industry of speculative domain squatters that extracts value from the DNS.

One of the key elements of all trademark regimes that Barry failed to mention was "use it or lose it". You can't register a trademark without evidence of use, and an existing trademark can be voided if left unused. This element is absent in all domains, you can keep it so long as you pay the annual rent. Your trademark is yours as long as you use it, but miss the rent payment on your domain and ... gone, possibly snapped up by a competitor.

As for the uniqueness of domains, mapped to trademarks ... personally I never saw this as a problem for brands so much as for end-users. And I am reminded that trademarks were designed to reduce consumer confusion over anything else.

Just as Barry needed the industry descriptor to differentiate between the two Deltas in his narrative, registering as DELTAAIR.* or DELTAFAUCET.* (which is actually the case) is a trivial, unambiguous solution. The land-grab over the dictionary word "Delta" thus becomes purely a matter of vanity, since to the consumer DELTA.* is meaningless without context. As a result, the owner of DELTA.* ends up being who got to register first or offered the most resale money to an original renter.

The problem with brands to me extends to those not unique enough to be trademarked, an issue totally off ICANN's radar because it doesn't make money for lawyers or branding experts. But it matters to both Internet users and Internet destinations.

The most famous Joe's Pizza is in New York. But the owner of JOESPIZZA.COM <http://joespizza.com/> is a New York style pizza place in Los Angeles, forcing the original to use JOESPIZZANYC.COM <http://joespizzanyc.com/>. The Joe's Pizza in St. Louis needs to use orderjoes.com <http://orderjoes.com/>. And all of the other dozens (maybe hundreds) of "Joe's Pizza" locations need to find similarly non-intuitive names. Adding a .PIZZA TLD enables a single extra entry for JOES.PIZZA (located who-knows-where?) and ccTLDs add one more per country but that's it, the rest of the Joe's Pizza domains there are non-intuitive too.

A forward-thinking DNS might have come up with a geographical hierarchy to handle this and similar consumer confusion, but instead all we got was the chaotic results from first come first served. That most certainly is a failing of the DNS.

This, of course, opened the door to search results that would always give you the Joe's Pizza nearest your locatiion regardless of its URL, so in that world the domain became irrelevant. And now that irrelevance has spread to all other industries too. Type "Delta" into Google and it dutifully presents both Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets (as well as the city of Delta, British Columbia).

So the problem for all of this is solved, but the solution is external to the DNS. Domains are still used, but what they are is now irrelevant.

- Evan

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org <mailto:at-large@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org <mailto:at-large-leave@icann.org>

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

The artificiality risks you mention in particular can't be managed via the WIPO/lawyering sinecures that ICANN has fostered. At best those can "hand wave" but they can't implement realtime and that has meant users are less safe and have less choice than they need. If ICANN system is to survive it really does need to acknowledge other registry systems have authority such as business and IPR registries and seed development of protocols and services that can authenticate between them. Antony Van Couvering via At-Large <at-large@icann.org> writes:

Karl, I completely agree. Domain names are used less and less as navigation, whatever that means anymore, and hence as marketing either. That in itself should lessen speculative behavior. They do, however, continue to carry some weight:

(1) If you have a website with a “custom” domain name, you are seen as more serious than someone who doesn’t, and in many circles not having one means that you are definitely not serious. (2) Same for an email address, but less so (3) Domain names and associated websites are seen as sources of authority for the business / person in question. This is actually more and more important with AI hallucinating over 50% of the time. (4) A good name implies a prosperous company, which is why you see companies “migrating” to shorter / better versions of their name. (5) You have rights with a domain name. If you pay your bill on time, you get to keep your name, and say pretty much what you want (tyrants permitting). Facebook, Google, or any proprietary platform can’t throw you off. You may not be able to profit much, but you can keep your voice. I personally believe this is an undervalued aspect. (6) Better uptime

I’m sure there are other reasons why domain names are important to some slices of society, e.g., large institutions, as well as some lingering marketing advantages overall.

But as the magic gateway to commerce? That ship sailed a long time ago.

...

On May 23, 2025, at 3:06 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:

The domain name system, or rather the way it is used, has had a qualitative shift over the last couple of decades.

Of course there remain people and companies who are still using, what I believe to be an increasingly obsolete concept, that domain names carry semantic meanings to users.

In 2017 I wrote about this change:

Domain Names Are Fading From User View - https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/fading-domain-names/

As a person who is a card-carrying intellectual property lawyer I still see some hyperbolics from trademark practitioners. But I am seeing fewer and fewer of these.

Part of this is that ICANN and various laws have basically given trademark protectors a dominant power to shape domain name issuance and holding practices so that trademark protection tends to win most disputes with minimal expense and effort.

Another part, and a part that is growing, is that simply put, users see domain names less often, and even in those diminishing number of cases where users utter domain names, the domain name "words" are less often used as a kind of directory or search service.

--karl--

On 5/23/25 2:06 PM, Antony Van Couvering via At-Large wrote:

...

There is no famous “Joe’s Pizza” in New York. You may be thinking of Ray’s Pizza, but even in this case the question of who was first, and who was famous, and who was famous first are hotly disputed and in fact the original one may be an invention.

If domain names are worth nothing, as you say, why would anyone engage in “rent-seeking” behavior? The fact is that a memorable name that leads you to information / goods / services / whatever is valuable. Naturally, people seek to profit. I suspect you find this objectionable, but I think you would also agree that it’s inevitable.

Your plan seeks to eliminate this behavior by making domain names cumbersome, tedious, and subject to rules of categorization dreamed up by IP lawyers. This would definitely get rid of the behavior because no-one would want one, or use one, as the dismal results of categorizing registrations in the .us domain amply illustrate. Or look at how .uk, .ph and a multitude of other ccTLDs have dumped their cumbersome functional subdomains and seen an instant take-up of registrations at the second level. It is obvious even to a casual observer that consumers prefer short, memorable names over some complicated set of categories. If your solution to end speculative behavior is to so maim and disfigure domain names that no-one would want one, then I grant you, your idea would work.

It would help your case if you could show some actual harm to consumers on any scale that is actually endemic to domain names and not the internet in general. There were dire predictions and prophesies of apocalypse if consumers were allowed to have a great choice of names, but where is the calamity?

If you really want to charge up this hill, you can dust off Simon Higgs’ paper which outlines it all in great detail. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-higgs-tld-cat/. It got no support thirty years ago and I don’t think it would now, but it describes what you suggest.

Now, who exactly would be in charge of deciding which category which businesses should go into? How does that work?

...

On May 23, 2025, at 8:46 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> <mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 11:07 AM Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc <mailto:avc@avc.vc>> wrote:

...

The reason there are issues are: (1) domain names are unique; they wouldn’t work if they weren’t. Trademarks are not unique, they wouldn’t work if they were. (2) First-come, first-served is a good way to fairly allocate a resource, especially compared to all the other ways — e.g., reserving names for rich entities claiming dubious global rights according to rules dreamed up by these same entities.

First come first served is an awful way to allocate this resource, because it invites rent-seeking, ticket-scalping behaviour that favours the tech-savvy over both the producers and consumers of goods. Thus the lovely industry of speculative domain squatters that extracts value from the DNS.

One of the key elements of all trademark regimes that Barry failed to mention was "use it or lose it". You can't register a trademark without evidence of use, and an existing trademark can be voided if left unused. This element is absent in all domains, you can keep it so long as you pay the annual rent. Your trademark is yours as long as you use it, but miss the rent payment on your domain and ... gone, possibly snapped up by a competitor.

As for the uniqueness of domains, mapped to trademarks ... personally I never saw this as a problem for brands so much as for end-users. And I am reminded that trademarks were designed to reduce consumer confusion over anything else.

Just as Barry needed the industry descriptor to differentiate between the two Deltas in his narrative, registering as DELTAAIR.* or DELTAFAUCET.* (which is actually the case) is a trivial, unambiguous solution. The land-grab over the dictionary word "Delta" thus becomes purely a matter of vanity, since to the consumer DELTA.* is meaningless without context. As a result, the owner of DELTA.* ends up being who got to register first or offered the most resale money to an original renter.

The problem with brands to me extends to those not unique enough to be trademarked, an issue totally off ICANN's radar because it doesn't make money for lawyers or branding experts. But it matters to both Internet users and Internet destinations.

The most famous Joe's Pizza is in New York. But the owner of JOESPIZZA.COM <http://joespizza.com/> is a New York style pizza place in Los Angeles, forcing the original to use JOESPIZZANYC.COM <http://joespizzanyc.com/>. The Joe's Pizza in St. Louis needs to use orderjoes.com <http://orderjoes.com/>. And all of the other dozens (maybe hundreds) of "Joe's Pizza" locations need to find similarly non-intuitive names. Adding a .PIZZA TLD enables a single extra entry for JOES.PIZZA (located who-knows-where?) and ccTLDs add one more per country but that's it, the rest of the Joe's Pizza domains there are non-intuitive too.

A forward-thinking DNS might have come up with a geographical hierarchy to handle this and similar consumer confusion, but instead all we got was the chaotic results from first come first served. That most certainly is a failing of the DNS.

This, of course, opened the door to search results that would always give you the Joe's Pizza nearest your locatiion regardless of its URL, so in that world the domain became irrelevant. And now that irrelevance has spread to all other industries too. Type "Delta" into Google and it dutifully presents both Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets (as well as the city of Delta, British Columbia).

So the problem for all of this is solved, but the solution is external to the DNS. Domains are still used, but what they are is now irrelevant.

- Evan

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org <mailto:at-large@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org <mailto:at-large-leave@icann.org>

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- Christian de Larrinaga

On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 5:06 PM Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc> wrote:

If domain names are worth nothing, as you say, why would anyone engage in “rent-seeking” behavior? The fact is that a memorable name that leads you to information / goods / services / whatever is valuable.

It was valuable, once. Until there were better alternatives. Memorable domain names are now legacy technology. The only people still talking them up, by and large, are people with a financial stake in keeping them precious. Once upon a time companies put their URLs on their trucks, airplanes and all marketing collateral. That practice is on the wane because they know consumers can easily search for them. Naturally, people seek to profit. I suspect you find this objectionable

Not at all. I love and admire when people profit by innovating and adding value <https://www.zdnet.com/article/feeling-lucky/> by helping end-users find what they want on the web. Rent-seeking ... profiting from an asset simply because you were first in line to get it ... is neither innovative nor value-adding. It's the Internet equivalent of ticket scalping. I acknowledge its existence but believe that it is seen by Internet destinations as an irritant, a shakedown that deserves a workaround. Or multiple workarounds. but I think you would also agree that it’s inevitable.

What is inevitable is that the world has recognized the shakedown, and successfully sought those workarounds that make "memorable" domains increasingly pointless. In some parts of the world that don't use Latin scripts, they went to numerical domains and QR codes. The growth of mobile and touchscreens led to development of apps that in some cases were just hotlinks that hid the domain. Other apps like Facebook served as gateways to web destinations and to many are the preferred way to access the Internet. Every browser maker implemented a search bar as quickly as they could, soon replacing the original URL entry window with a combined URL/search entry. And now Interactive AI can take you to sites that you didn't even know you wanted, totally burying the domains from sight along the way.

Your plan seeks to eliminate this behavior by making domain names cumbersome,

I don't have a plan for domain names, I just offered a what-if scenario. I choose to actively participate in the development of workarounds as I have no interest in fixing what is broken beyond repair. Memorable domains are legacy tech. Companies are increasingly able to get by with un-cool names with hyphens or other hacks because algorithms will still find them if consumers seek them out. What you call cumbersome I call inevitable because it will be buried, much of it already is as Karl has correctly noted. It would help your case if you could show some actual harm to consumers on

any scale that is actually endemic to domain names and not the internet in general. There were dire predictions and prophesies of apocalypse if consumers were allowed to have a great choice of names, but where is the calamity?

One of the Internet's great design strengths has been the ability to route around obstacles. For the longest time the DNS has been an irritation that Internet users and Internet destinations have had to endure in order to connect to each other. The paths to circumvent that obstacle have been in active development for decades and, unlike the DNS, continue to demonstrate innovation and growth. The market cap of Verisign, the 800-pound gorilla of domain-name space and ICANN influence, is $26.3B, while Google's is $2.05T.

Now, who exactly would be in charge of deciding which category which businesses should go into? How does that work?

You mistake me for someone who cares. I remain involved in ICANN At-Large as an act of harm-mitigation. I want to see ALAC laser focused on maintenance -- keeping the DNS stable, secure and as trustworthy as possible in its current, legacy, form. It's why I responded to John's original post; while I appreciate his work, I believe that ALAC's meddling in the mechanics and geography of the domain supply chain is a harmful distraction unless it directly relates to safety and stability. - Evan