Driven by the Registrars, the Council is considering a letter to the GAC (draft attached) in response to the GAC letter to ICANN CEO. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-24apr09.pdf The Council response raises issues with which the BC may agree and others with which we may not! We have therefore indicated at this stage a BC abstention. The IPC has done the same. Do let me know if you have any views. Philip
Philip The critical element is that one set of objectors cannot have a power of veto that others do not. An objector cannot also unfairly undermine legitimate which with they may just happen to disagreed. Circumventing a specialised process is exactly what 2.5 years of policy development was supposed to prevent. I support the Council's position. Liz ... Liz Williams +44 1963 364 380 +44 7824 877 757 On 14 May 2009, at 13:20, Philip Sheppard wrote:
<GNSO Council to GAC May 2009 V4.doc>
The draft letter is imperfect in that it suggests that governments might have some legitimate rights vis-a-vis geo names at the second level, when in fact map names have never been entitled to trademark protection. Regardless of one's views as to whether governments should have any right to object to a second level geo name, the notion that they should have an unquestioned and absolute veto power over any second level name incorporating a defined class of geo terms is absurd -- for goodness sake, what legitimate right of the French government is being violated if someone registers france.beaches or riviera.beaches? The BC should defend the legitimacy of a free marketplace, and consumers acting in that marketplace should decide whether such a domain is commercially viable based upon the information and services it provides. A governmental veto power totally deprives registrants of any due process protections, deprives consumers of a broad class of potentially useful direct search domain names, and will stifle innovation and constrict the utility of broad classes of potential new gTLDs. Affording such a veto power is also a formula for political favoritism if not outright corruption. Too much has already been conceded to the GAC in the new gTLD draft Guidebook and it is time they be told, politely but forcefully, to back off. We therefore urge that the BC endorse the letter. Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Williams [lizawilliams@mac.com] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:26 AM To: Philip Sheppard Cc: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC Philip The critical element is that one set of objectors cannot have a power of veto that others do not. An objector cannot also unfairly undermine legitimate which with they may just happen to disagreed. Circumventing a specialised process is exactly what 2.5 years of policy development was supposed to prevent. I support the Council's position. Liz ... Liz Williams +44 1963 364 380 +44 7824 877 757 On 14 May 2009, at 13:20, Philip Sheppard wrote: <GNSO Council to GAC May 2009 V4.doc>
Hello, On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Driven by the Registrars, the Council is considering a letter to the GAC (draft attached) in response to the GAC letter to ICANN CEO.
The GAC letter raises important issues which demonstrates that the new gTLD program needs far greater study before being capable of being launched. They reinforce the resounding comments made by the vast majority of the public (including businesses) who've made thoughtful comments that do not see any need for new gTLDs, and actually are actively opposed to their introduction due to their negative externalities. New gTLD advocates have not demonstrated any widespread support outside of a tiny minority who wish to directly profit from their launch, profits which are geared to short-term thinking and which can and will cause long-term and lasting damage to the public. New gTLDs are falsely portrayed by ICANN as "win-win", but they are truly "win-lose" (with the number of losers facing damages swamping by far any "winners"). We do not support the GNSO Council's draft response letter, because it is written based on the assumption that new gTLDs have to be launched. A more measured response would admit not only the possibility, but the reality that major threshold issues remain unresolved. Indeed more threshold issues are being discovered as the implications of adding large numbers of new gTLDs are thought through by more and more members of the public. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
George It is usual for you to provide validation and research that supports your points. You have mentioned "negative externalities" -- apart from the need to protect legitimate trademarks through existing mechanisms and introducing improvements where we can, what other negative externalities are there? You mention "not demonstrated any widespread support outside of a tiny minority who wish to direct profit from their launch". How does that account for people wanting a TLD that is a not for profit, public benefit, non commercial TLD? More broadly, what is wrong with making a profit? On a very superficial reading, running a TLD registry is both legal and not always profitable. You have said that "profits which are geared to short-term thinking and which can and will cause long-term and lasting damage to the public." Could you be more precise about long-term and lasting damage to the public? Liz ... Liz Williams +44 1963 364 380 +44 7824 877 757 On 14 May 2009, at 20:23, George Kirikos wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Driven by the Registrars, the Council is considering a letter to the GAC (draft attached) in response to the GAC letter to ICANN CEO.
The GAC letter raises important issues which demonstrates that the new gTLD program needs far greater study before being capable of being launched. They reinforce the resounding comments made by the vast majority of the public (including businesses) who've made thoughtful comments that do not see any need for new gTLDs, and actually are actively opposed to their introduction due to their negative externalities. New gTLD advocates have not demonstrated any widespread support outside of a tiny minority who wish to directly profit from their launch, profits which are geared to short-term thinking and which can and will cause long-term and lasting damage to the public. New gTLDs are falsely portrayed by ICANN as "win-win", but they are truly "win-lose" (with the number of losers facing damages swamping by far any "winners").
We do not support the GNSO Council's draft response letter, because it is written based on the assumption that new gTLDs have to be launched. A more measured response would admit not only the possibility, but the reality that major threshold issues remain unresolved. Indeed more threshold issues are being discovered as the implications of adding large numbers of new gTLDs are thought through by more and more members of the public.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Hello, On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Liz Williams wrote:
George It is usual for you to provide validation and research that supports your points. You have mentioned "negative externalities" -- apart from the need to protect legitimate trademarks through existing mechanisms and introducing improvements where we can, what other negative externalities are there?
I've made extensive comments in the new gTLD comment archives already, so don't wish to duplicate all of those again for all who've read them. You might want to refer to the words of Tim Berners-Lee who I quoted from at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/2gtld-guide/msg00020.html "And because the DNS tree is so fundamental to the Internet applications which build on top of it, any uncertainty about the future creates immediately instability and harm." "Our first instincts, then should be not to change the system with anything but incremental and carefully thought-out changes. The addition of new top-levels domains is a very disturbing influence. It carries great cost. It should only be undertaken when there is a very clear benefit to the new domain." "The chief effect of the introduction of the .biz and .info domains appears to have been a cash influx for the domain name registries." "Introducing new TLDs has two effects. The first effect is a little like printing more money. The value of one's original registration drops. At the same time, the cost of protecting one's brand goes up (from the cost of three domains to four, five, ...). The value of each domain name such as example.com also drops because of brand dilution and public confusion. Even though most people largely ignore the last segment of the name, when it is actually used to distinguish between different owners, this increases the mental effort required to remember which company has which top level domain. This makes the whole name space less usable." "The second effect is that instability is brought on. There is a flurry of activity to reserve domain names, a rush one cannot afford to miss in order to protect one's brand. There is a rash of attempts to steal well-known or valuable domains. The whole process involves a lot of administration, a lot of cost per month, a lot of business for those involved in the domain name business itself, and a negative value to the community." "When the benefits of the new domain itself are small or negative (as we discuss below), then one looks for incentive. The large amount of money that has changed hands for domain names might lead a person to suspect that this was the motivation." "The root of the domain name system is a single public resource, by design. Its control must be for and, indirectly, by the people as a whole. To give away a large chunk of this to a private group would be simply a betrayal of the public trust put in ICANN."
You mention "not demonstrated any widespread support outside of a tiny minority who wish to direct profit from their launch". How does that account for people wanting a TLD that is a not for profit, public benefit, non commercial TLD? More broadly, what is wrong with making a profit?
The folks who claim they are "not for profit" often still receive healthy salaries, pay consultants large ongoing amounts of money, etc. Dot-org is a perfect example of this, with PIR maximizing revenues at the expense of registrants with massive annual price increases so that they can direct the cash to their own causes. I'm certainly not against making profits, but am against it when it is parasitic (causing the negative externalities imposed upon everyone else) or is anti-competitive/monopolistic (e.g. VeriSign with a no-bid contract for dot-com, all the gTLDs with presumptive renewal, etc.).
Could you be more precise about long-term and lasting damage to the public?
See the comments above by Tim Berners-Lee for starters, or all my past comments in the new gTLD comments archive. The elimination of price caps, for example, which could propagate back into *existing* gTLDs and lead to tiered pricing is another obvious example. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
I do a good deal of work on externalities in another part of my advisory work for corporates in the areas of Internet connectivity. I would however, for the BC, refer you to the commissioned report prepared by a highly respected economic consulting firm, based in the UK, but with global focus -- Analysys Mason. The report, commissioned by AT&T, and prepared by the external consulting firm, clearly identifies SOME of the externalities. The externality of shifted economic implications, burdens of increased monitoring for fraud and abusive use of domain names, which is impacted by but not limited by trademark infringements, cannot be misunderstood, or ignored. I note with concern that ICANN has ignored completely the importance of well founded economic analysis, choosing instead to buy opinions, which one can always do, or to cite the few who do want to operate a registry, whether for non profit or for profit purposes, without doing the due diligence that would be expected of the "trusted and objective" coordinator and manager of the unique name space/indicators. Regretfully, increasingly, I see this Board, and some of staff buying the concept that ICANN is for 'growth and expansion" of the TLD space, as though that is what a trusted steward of the overall space would focus on. I was just at a session with 20 developing countries -- 4 of them are reviewing their ccTLDs and want to improve the governance. NONE of the 4, although they have awareness of the ICANN 'staff', wanted to start there with a conversation about what to do. All of them welcomed introductions to other ccTLD managers who have 'integrity' and worry about fraud and abuse. Among other things, the BC has stood for security and stability as a priority. ICANN's role is to manage -- e.g. govern this space. It is continues its accelerated shift to thinking of itself as 'free market' and 'commercially driven' it is abdicating the purpose for which it was established, abandoning the principles that those of us who crafted it and drafted its introductory bylaws and mission agreed to, across a very diverse core of Internet stakeholders -- who were, by the way, private sector led, but multi stakeholder in nature. And will force the hands of governments to take oversight of some of its core functions. This is a 'shared space'. Should ICANN not treat it as such, it will become only a e facto trade association for registries and registrars, who then want to set the rules for their competition. Customers of services do not accept that a supplier speaks for their interests. It will increase the likelihood of registry failure. It will abandon any safe harbors it has for non profit status, and anti trust 'shelter'. And I'll be spending even more time at the ITU and other fora, trying to prevent intergovernmental takeover. And we will undoubtedly see the gTLD registry and registrars added to the definition of Internet Intermediary, and subject to licensing country by country. Yesterday, I talked to two governments who asked me why they should not add gTLD registries and registrars to parties subject to entry and 'iicensing requirements' in their country, describing behaviors that harm their consumers in their interactions. They described ICANN's failures to take action. They were familiar with domain name tasting and parking. The pursuit of an irrationally enthusiastic approach to change in any part of the DNS is immature and irresponsible for a 'trusted steward' who must look at all aspects of the eco system that it supports. Only when the community insists, does ICANN even slowly show signs of recognition of the need to make changes. I'm seeing ICANN failing to recognize the yellow signs of caution, " hairpin turn" ahead road signs. And ignoring the implications of imposing externalities on the subsystems is just one of the 'bad indicators', in my view. In the meantime, for anyone who wants a good read about only some of the externalities that were identified by the economist from Analyses Mason, you can find as an attachment to AT&T's posting on the economic 'position papers' from Dennis Carlton that ICANN commissioned to defend their view that they do not need to do an economic analysis. Marilyn Cade
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 07:30:46 -0400 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC From: icann@leap.com To: lizawilliams@mac.com CC: bc-gnso@icann.org
Hello,
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Liz Williams wrote:
George It is usual for you to provide validation and research that supports your points. You have mentioned "negative externalities" -- apart from the need to protect legitimate trademarks through existing mechanisms and introducing improvements where we can, what other negative externalities are there?
I've made extensive comments in the new gTLD comment archives already, so don't wish to duplicate all of those again for all who've read them. You might want to refer to the words of Tim Berners-Lee who I quoted from at:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/2gtld-guide/msg00020.html
"And because the DNS tree is so fundamental to the Internet applications which build on top of it, any uncertainty about the future creates immediately instability and harm."
"Our first instincts, then should be not to change the system with anything but incremental and carefully thought-out changes. The addition of new top-levels domains is a very disturbing influence. It carries great cost. It should only be undertaken when there is a very clear benefit to the new domain."
"The chief effect of the introduction of the .biz and .info domains appears to have been a cash influx for the domain name registries."
"Introducing new TLDs has two effects.
The first effect is a little like printing more money. The value of one's original registration drops. At the same time, the cost of protecting one's brand goes up (from the cost of three domains to four, five, ...).
The value of each domain name such as example.com also drops because of brand dilution and public confusion. Even though most people largely ignore the last segment of the name, when it is actually used to distinguish between different owners, this increases the mental effort required to remember which company has which top level domain. This makes the whole name space less usable."
"The second effect is that instability is brought on. There is a flurry of activity to reserve domain names, a rush one cannot afford to miss in order to protect one's brand. There is a rash of attempts to steal well-known or valuable domains. The whole process involves a lot of administration, a lot of cost per month, a lot of business for those involved in the domain name business itself, and a negative value to the community."
"When the benefits of the new domain itself are small or negative (as we discuss below), then one looks for incentive. The large amount of money that has changed hands for domain names might lead a person to suspect that this was the motivation."
"The root of the domain name system is a single public resource, by design. Its control must be for and, indirectly, by the people as a whole. To give away a large chunk of this to a private group would be simply a betrayal of the public trust put in ICANN."
You mention "not demonstrated any widespread support outside of a tiny minority who wish to direct profit from their launch". How does that account for people wanting a TLD that is a not for profit, public benefit, non commercial TLD? More broadly, what is wrong with making a profit?
The folks who claim they are "not for profit" often still receive healthy salaries, pay consultants large ongoing amounts of money, etc. Dot-org is a perfect example of this, with PIR maximizing revenues at the expense of registrants with massive annual price increases so that they can direct the cash to their own causes.
I'm certainly not against making profits, but am against it when it is parasitic (causing the negative externalities imposed upon everyone else) or is anti-competitive/monopolistic (e.g. VeriSign with a no-bid contract for dot-com, all the gTLDs with presumptive renewal, etc.).
Could you be more precise about long-term and lasting damage to the public?
See the comments above by Tim Berners-Lee for starters, or all my past comments in the new gTLD comments archive. The elimination of price caps, for example, which could propagate back into *existing* gTLDs and lead to tiered pricing is another obvious example.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Could not agree more George. The dot is a very powerful symbol. It simplifies the distinction to the left; a virtual place, to the right; the internet or web. Once we start moving that dot around it becomes a period and from there a misplaced one with less brandability. In the last 100 years some of the greatest technological creations succeeded because the public was able to understand and manage them. The dot com is much like the numerals 0-9 on the phone and television. Simple and easy to use, the public learned to navigate them and it was a long term relationship that continues today. The same can be said for the dot symbol. There is an understanding that has been defined and learned in the last 20 years. It has worked beyond our wildest dreams but it is also fragile and can be easily fractured if not protected. We have had trial periods with other gTLDs and we should remember why they did not work for the greater good of the web community. Some would argue that fortunes were made but they fell far short of expectations. A final point that has been on my mind in regards to IDNs. As an example; if someone built a business with global reach for 15 years like Hollywood.com and others were allowed to register Hollywood.com in other dialects, wouldn't that harm both the owner of Hollywood.com and those that expected to find the original site when typing it in their browsers? Should there really be hundreds of Hollywood.com, one for each dialect? Doesn't is harm the owner of Hollywood.com if it is diluted in such a way? He or she should have rights to their business that has been defined for 15 years around the globe. The public would also be confused if they expected to visit the address but was led to a different site with differing content. There should be one Hollywood.com in any dialect. This will be a problem for businesses that have had a web presence built around a domain name as their brand and as the new IDNs get built out. I expect there will be future turf battles over first claim rights. This is something that should have been foreseen but was not. Michael Castello CEO/President Castello Cities Internet Network, Inc. http://www.ccin.com michael@ccin.com -- Friday, May 15, 2009, 4:30:46 AM, you wrote: GK> Hello, GK> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Liz Williams wrote:
George It is usual for you to provide validation and research that supports your points. You have mentioned "negative externalities" -- apart from the need to protect legitimate trademarks through existing mechanisms and introducing improvements where we can, what other negative externalities are there?
GK> I've made extensive comments in the new gTLD comment archives already, GK> so don't wish to duplicate all of those again for all who've read GK> them. You might want to refer to the words of Tim Berners-Lee who I GK> quoted from at: GK> http://forum.icann.org/lists/2gtld-guide/msg00020.html GK> "And because the DNS tree is so fundamental to the Internet GK> applications which build on top of it, any uncertainty about the GK> future creates immediately instability and harm." GK> "Our first instincts, then should be not to change the system with GK> anything but incremental and carefully thought-out changes. The GK> addition of new top-levels domains is a very disturbing influence. It GK> carries great cost. It should only be undertaken when there is a very GK> clear benefit to the new domain." GK> "The chief effect of the introduction of the .biz and .info domains GK> appears to have been a cash influx for the domain name registries." GK> "Introducing new TLDs has two effects. GK> The first effect is a little like printing more money. The value of one's GK> original registration drops. At the same time, the cost of protecting one's GK> brand goes up (from the cost of three domains to four, five, ...). GK> The value of each domain name such as example.com also drops because GK> of brand dilution and public confusion. Even though most people GK> largely ignore the last segment of the name, when it is actually used GK> to distinguish between different owners, this increases the mental GK> effort required to remember which company has which top level domain. GK> This makes the whole name space less usable." GK> "The second effect is that instability is brought on. There is a flurry of GK> activity to reserve domain names, a rush one cannot afford to miss in GK> order to protect one's brand. There is a rash of attempts to steal GK> well-known or valuable domains. The whole process involves a lot of GK> administration, a lot of cost per month, a lot of business for those GK> involved in the domain name business itself, and a negative value to GK> the community." GK> "When the benefits of the new domain itself are small or negative (as GK> we discuss below), then one looks for incentive. The large amount of GK> money that has changed hands for domain names might lead a person to GK> suspect that this was the motivation." GK> "The root of the domain name system is a single public resource, by GK> design. Its control must be for and, indirectly, by the people as a GK> whole. To give away a large chunk of this to a private group would be GK> simply a betrayal of the public trust put in ICANN."
You mention "not demonstrated any widespread support outside of a tiny minority who wish to direct profit from their launch". How does that account for people wanting a TLD that is a not for profit, public benefit, non commercial TLD? More broadly, what is wrong with making a profit?
GK> The folks who claim they are "not for profit" often still receive GK> healthy salaries, pay consultants large ongoing amounts of money, etc. GK> Dot-org is a perfect example of this, with PIR maximizing revenues at GK> the expense of registrants with massive annual price increases so that GK> they can direct the cash to their own causes. GK> I'm certainly not against making profits, but am against it when it is GK> parasitic (causing the negative externalities imposed upon everyone GK> else) or is anti-competitive/monopolistic (e.g. VeriSign with a no-bid GK> contract for dot-com, all the gTLDs with presumptive renewal, etc.).
Could you be more precise about long-term and lasting damage to the public?
GK> See the comments above by Tim Berners-Lee for starters, or all my past GK> comments in the new gTLD comments archive. The elimination of price GK> caps, for example, which could propagate back into *existing* gTLDs GK> and lead to tiered pricing is another obvious example. GK> Sincerely, GK> George Kirikos GK> 416-588-0269 GK> http://www.leap.com/
I have been at an IGF meeting in Geneva, with limited ability to spend time on other than essential items. I responded earlier that I would propose that the BC councilors abstain from a vote, given that there is not a clarity of consensus on this. I saw Phil Corwin's response to my comment, and I think it is actually consistent with the spirit of my comment. I advised that the BC elected councilors should abstain. Clearly, the councilors of the BC have taken no consultation with the BC membership on this letter. Hence, I proposed an abstention. That allows the elected councilors to state that they cannot take a position, since they have not undertaken consultation. My views on the growing attitude of the Council that they are in charge of governance of the SO are documented already, so merely reference them here for informational purposes. This is a really signficant issue and one that really has to be addressed. The policy council is the policy council. IT IS NOT the governance mechanism for the SO. A separate approach, that is not inclusive of the policy councilors/policy council should address the adm/management coordination functions. However the growing tendency of the Council to initiate views, opinions, to draft letters, and to lobby actively in the dinner they have with the Board/Senior staff, sometimes from the feedback I get without any accountability or acknowledging when they are speaking as individuals, and do not have guidance from the membership is of increasing concern. At the same time, the Board is increasingly disconnected from where the broader stakeholders are on larger non policy issues. Clearly, the Policy Council shouldn't be the answer to that larger problems and serious concern. The elected policy oouncilors do a lot of hard and difficult work for us. I certainly want to recognize that. However, I do not think that the BC Councilors can or should support this letter. There are many reasons. the lack of consultation alone is rationale enough. However, it isn't reasonable to suggest that the councilors not make some kind of response to a vote. They need to vote yes, no, or abstention. They might need to vote earlier to oppose the generation of positions that not founded in consultation with members.. However, when situations develop where there not consultation, abstention allows them to provide a statement. That seems the appropriate response in this instance. Now, should the councilors have alerted the membership earlier? Perhaps. Who knows, since the councilors didn't describe the circumstances of when this topic was posed... Perhaps we should be part of the solution and ask out elected councilors to post the agenda, with annotations on what they propose to do about each item. That would put the responsibility on the councilors to advise members, but put the responsibility on members to comment. This will take some management to get enough members interacting to make guidance meaningful, but it could be a useful strategy to support the elected counclors, so that they are not 'out there' having to guess what the members want/think. I can understand that there are sometimes exigent circumstances to draft a letter to the Board. There MIGHT be a process where a 72 hour turn around is needed for constituency feedback. In such an instance, I would expect the secretariat of the constituency to post urgent emails,at a minimum, and for members who provide mobile numbers, perhaps an SMS or text could be sent that there is an urgent feedback situation.
participants (7)
-
George Kirikos -
Liz Williams -
Marilyn Cade -
Marilyn Cade -
Michael Castello -
Phil Corwin -
Philip Sheppard