I find it interesting that the notion of 'removing the price cap" is being read to suggest an increase in registry fee amounts. But why? Any back-of-the-envelope calculation for TLDs such as .com or .org strongly suggests that the existing registry fee levels are dramatically too high - and cumulate well past a $billion a year in monopoly rents far in excess of actual costs. Running a registry is largely a back room operation - some database transaction servers and a cloud of actual DNS name servers. Since ICANN was formed the cost of those things has fallen and fallen and fallen. And the cost of much of the infrastructure - such as Verisign's fortress data center(s) have been amortized years ago. As far as I know there has never been an audit, much less a serious audit that distinguishes between real operational costs and Potemkin Village corporate image fluff costs, of actual costs of providing legacy TLD registry services. One would think that an audit - published to the public - would be warranted before any consideration of unleashing unbounded upwards prices onto captive legacy TLD users? --karl--

Karl Auerbach wrote:

One would think that an audit - published to the public - would be warranted before any consideration of unleashing unbounded upwards prices onto captive legacy TLD users?

--karl--

yes exactly. -- Christian de Larrinaga cdel@firsthand.net

On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 16:44, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:

I've changed the subject line to reflect the forking of the conversation.

There seem to be several points in this conversation:

2. That some people want the end (registry+registrar) pricing of domains to be so high as to discourage either speculation or rapid changes (i.e. to help scammers hide.)

That PoV is deeper than you suggest. At least to me, underpriced domain names not only encourage speculation, they starve ICANN from resources needed to do adequate research into the consequences of its actions, or have adequete anti-abuse activities. As we're seeing with government backlash against GAFA, tech entitles are deliberately oblovious to the aftermath of what they do and expect the rest of society to clean up their mess. ICANN is a minor player compared to the tech giants but no less guilty of their arrogance and cluelessness writ small. 3. That domain name registrants are a distinct class of people (to a

degree an overlapping class) with internet users and that thus one must not let the former "stakeholders'" interests replace the latter "stakeholders'" interests.

Heh. This point takes very little time to be confirmed, by your own words. See below. 1. Many of us (myself included) are effectively trapped into the legacy

TLDs. The cost of changing to a new TLD is high, and ICANN's arbitrary ten year limit on registrations, coupled with weak limits on price increases, means that even if we change we would remain unprotected against predatory pricing.

This goes to the whole ICANN-created concept of domains as a rental good rather than property. There could easily be a regime through which the ownership of the domain, and the contracting of the service to enable it, are two separate transactions. This would be similar to the current way mobile phones work almost everywhere in the world except the US, where the purchase of ones phone is once and stable, and once procured you shop for the best provider. Over my lifetime my phones have seen SIM cards from many different providers and I am free to change them without penalty or fear of losing my phone. Similarly, the one-time aquisition of a domain name could (and IMO should) be a fully separate transaction from the provision of the technical service to resolve it. ICANN *could* have this model -- but that would force RSPs to compete at a consumer level. Of course they don't want that, and since they (and the rest of the cartel that likes the status quo) have no interest in change, neither does ICANN.

To start this conversation, ICANN ought to initiate a review of the actual costs incurred by legacy TLDs [...]

This just extends the status quo monopoly, while steering into the "R" word that ICANN dreads. Transition from monopoly to regulated monopoly. Might work as a half-measure, but ICANN has spent decades telling the world that it's not a credible regulator and I accept that admission. 2. Speculators get a bad name - but we all do it. NO WE DON'T. Please don't tar me with your ethics. Every single domain I have chosen not to use I let expire and send back to the pool. I just sent another one back this week. And thank you for addressing your own issue of "distinct classes of people" head-on. Who is this "we" of which you speak? To me, it's the <1% of the world that knows how to play the ICANN game, while everyone else gets played. You've just helped demonstrate the point, that your interests are out-of-sync with the general public that bears the cost of speculation through confusion and susceptibility to abuse and fraud. Your "we" is a bubble far removed from the realities of people who use the Internet and have no idea what "DNS" means. My own company has learned to never relinquish a no-longer needed name

because of the risk of those names falling into the hands of those who find it useful to tarnish our corporate reputation. So we bear a cost - probably for the life of the company - to retain those names.)

The issue of defensive registrations -- which could partially be reduced through higher domain fees -- is important, but beyond the scope of this discussion and well beyond ICANN's ability to fix. (Aside: If abuse of a name can tarnish your reputation, then it's hardly "no longer needed") The ill consequences of speculation are many, not the least of which is the artificial scarcity that enabled the domain industry to push for more otherwise-unneeded TLDs, and more poor choices for name owners trying to prevent use of domains to tarnish their reputation. If we are worried about scammers (and I count myself among those who are

concerned) who use and then abandon names rapidly and bear little cost for doing so, let me suggest that we begin with an easier proposition: Change the five minute name server update time that came into existence under ICANN to something more like the prior 24 hours, or something in the middle, like 6 hours.

You really think this will solve anything? 3. As I've made clear over the years, I find the "stakeholder" model

to be quite contrary to the notion of bottom-up governance. And here is a case in point. If a particular person is to be pre-designated as a "domain name registrant" or "user" or "small business" or "intellectual property user" then that pre-designation distorts the distillation of views and, thus, outcomes. In political terms here in the US we use the term "Gerrymandering" for that kind of shaping of the interests.

It's not that complex. Are you saying that there is not point in making a distinction between consumers and suppliers? And that there is never a need to protect comsumers as a "distinct" group?

I've long said that the atomic unit of interest is the individual human being. By allowing only individual humans to be recognized, or rather, to be counted, when measuring a proposal we push the resolution of conflicts into each person as he/she resolves his/her own various interests.

Funny how so few societies today have such direct democracy. There's a reason for that. In a society that thrives on the division of labour, people can't and shouldn't be expected to know all the little details of everything that affects their lives. Supposedly that's the role of a democratic representative government, which enables the public to outsource policymaking except in those few areas in which they have specific interest and/or expertise. If ICANN really wants to do real, credible surveys of the public to determine its priorities and direction, count me in. If I had my way most of ALAC's budget would be redirected to research and public education. But from what I've seen, though, when the power is taken only by individuals who are financially or otherwise motivated to assert that power, we get the traditional set of talking heads at ICANN Public Forums, limited to those who can afford (or most usually, have patrons who can afford) their presence. No thank you. If that's the option on offer, I'll take my chances with governments. When I think of my personal role in ALAC I am not defending the interests of myself, but rather of my family members, friends and colleagues who can barely boot up their laptops and for whom I'm usually tech support -- how does ICANN's work affect them? At my peak of ALAC involvement I had a challenge keeping up with all the moving parts, most of which has been made overly complex so to deter the amateurs. Little has changed. We talk a good game about outreach but it takes a special kind of masochism for someone to be sufficiently capable in ICANN processes who does not have a financial interest in its decisions. Its also expensive, even for those who are subsidized. So I'll happily push back on the wish for a direct-democracy utopia at ICANN unless you're prepared to let the domain industry and the technical community be outvoted by Paul Foody. (I would go so far as to deny corporations to have countable opinions - if

a corporate entity can't prevail upon its employees or owners to express support for the corporate interest then why should we undertake to do so? Of course, a corporate interest, as should any, interest, be allowed to provide information and express its point of view. But that should be merely information that gains weight only as it is accepted by individual humans.)

Nice theory. But in the ICANN travelling roadshow, the only humans that can keep up are the ones that are paid to do it full-time. And everyone else is at a loss. First eliminate all ICANN F2F meetings except for minimal AGMs. Make everything virtual so that money isn't a barrier to participating on an equal footing, and then we can treat further moves seriously. That's a necessary first step, Cheers, - Evan

I think Evan’s point about individual users deserves emphasis. Think of the least capable Internet user you know. Are you acting in their interests? (I’m back on an altruism bandwagon) From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of Karl Auerbach Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 12:28 AM To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Cc: LAC-Discuss-en <lac-discuss-en@icann.org>; At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] - Price caps - was: The Case for Regulatory Capture at ICANN | Review Signal Blog On 6/26/19 8:13 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: 1. Many of us (myself included) are effectively trapped into the legacy TLDs. The cost of changing to a new TLD is high, and ICANN's arbitrary ten year limit on registrations, coupled with weak limits on price increases, means that even if we change we would remain unprotected against predatory pricing. This goes to the whole ICANN-created concept of domains as a rental good rather than property. There could easily be a regime through which the ownership of the domain, and the contracting of the service to enable it, are two separate transactions. I proposed this well more than a decade ago: See https://cavebear.com/eweregistry/ (There's a story about how the name came about, but I'll spare readers from it except to mention that it derives from the largely forgotten Microsoft Windows "Me". ;-) Here's the lead-in text (typos and the technical error about presenting a certificate rather than using it for a digital signature are included): .EWE offers permanent domain names for a one-time registration fee. Names in .EWE never expire. You pay only for domain services; you do not pay yearly rent. .EWE strives to protect your privacy by erasing any information it may have about you once that information is no longer needed to process the registration fee. .EWE has no WHOIS. Names in .EWE are represented by a digital certificate. The digital certificate is your proof of ownership. You present that certificate to the .EWE registry when you update the name servers for your domain name or when requesting any other service from the .EWE registry. You may transfer your name simply by transferring the certificate. You may transfer your name to anyone you chose at whatever price and terms agreeable to you and your transferee may. You may even buy and sell your domain name anonymously on an open market or auction; the .EWE registry considers that to be your business. Your transferee obtains the same ability as you to further transfer the name. The .EWE registry offers non-repudiation transfer service to facilitate transfers while preserving anonymity; however this services is optional. With regard to the remainder of the points: You argue that high prices are good - my wife makes the same argument about air travel. She argues that air fares should be priced so high that it can become pleasant again without buying first class or hiring a G5. Perhaps you (and she) are correct - but that does not lead to the conclusion that those who are locked-into those services must become slaves to whatever price ICANN or the registry feel free to impose. However, as it stands, ICANN's fiat registry fees for legacy TLDs do amount to a tax on the internet. One can argue whether the $Billion-plus/year cost is absorbed by domain name buyers or passed on to consumers. Most likely it is passed on, but in micro-sized doses so that nobody really notices. But either way, it is an economic drag on internet activity that accrues to the benefit of the legacy registries for no reason other than that ICANN is too lazy, incompetent, or scared to look at the matter. With regard to stakeholderism - I said nothing about representative vs direct democracy. I merely said that the locus of resolving conflicts between interests should be vested in each individual human being and nowhere else. Whether those humans express their opinions directly on propositions or act through elected representatives does not affect my argument that "stakeholderism" is a form of Gerrymandering. (By-the-way, you argue that most people do not have the skills or time to deal with issues that affect them. To some degree one can't argue against that. However, I just finished watching a debate between US presidential candidates - they were clearly working hard to attract the votes of individual people. So I am a bit skeptical of the notion that people can not decide what is best for themselves, that democracy can't work, that they must [or will] be protected by a paternalist system formed by those who have "stake" - usually a significant financial interest - in outcomes. My metric on whether an institution is accountable to the people is this: can individual people, if they are driven by sufficient mutual interest, gather together act in concert to "throw the bums out"? In ICANN the answer is a resounding "no they can't". Or to put it another way - even if every user of the internet (excepting ICANN insiders), including every person affected by the internet, were to decide to dissolve ICANN could they do so? The answer is "no".) I don't care whether ICANN reacts negatively to the word "regulator". To that I resort to the old cliche that if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. By that method ICANN is most definitely a Regulator. --karl--

I believe that democracy, whether direct or representative, means that individual people must resolve among their various interests.  Sometimes that means electing representatives, for short terms (a few years max) who they believe will reflect their general choices. Stakeholder based systems, such as ICANN, are in conflict with that kind of human-based system.  Stakeholderism violates the notion of one-person-one vote by giving multiple roles to some people.  For instance in ICANN I'm a commercial business owner, intellectual property owner, domain name registrant, partial owner of several registries, am a member of technical bodies, have protocol numbers, and even part of the at-large - so I can assert my interests through multiple "stakeholder" forums.  And because stakeholderism recognizes corporate forms, I can multiply my role by acting via my corporate personas (yes, plural) in addition to my human one. As an experiment in political systems, ICANN is a throwback to the era of trade guilds than a harbinger of some great new thing of human empowerment.  ICANN's system is paternalistic, based on assertions that people do not have the time or knowledge to think for themselves, to decide for themselves, and that consequently they must be protected by presumed well-meaning guardians who are chosen by other guardians. Regarding DNS - What you propose is a significant technical change to the way that DNS works.  There are several proposals I have seen for that kind of thing.  But so far I have not seen working code that scales and is resistant to attack. By-the-way, I do see that some of this problem is solving itself - domain names are slowly losing their value as application level naming - think of twitter names or facebook names - and context sensitive lookups - such as personal contact apps or things like Amazon Alexa - are increasingly becoming the tokens and machinery that users utilize to indicate things they want.  (DNS would usually still be lurking underneath.) Regarding prices: You want to use fiat, regulatory high pricing as a way to hinder something you don't like: "speculation".  It appears that in your philosophy speculation is always bad. However for most of us (at least here in the US) routinely speculate in everything from homes to coins to retirement plans to life insurance (and also in the US, unfortunately, to medical care.) You cite ticket scalping and advocate high initial prices - which means that every patron gets scalped, not just the people who buy from speculative scalpers.  In my own transactions I've found the best way to deal with abusive scalping or speculation is to simply say "no" and not to buy.  Speculators can lose their investment and that will, in turn, reduce the fuel that drives abusive speculation. If we are honest in ICANN we should give a name to that difference between actual registry costs and the price registries charge - we should call it what it is, a tax.  And that tax should flow into the coffers of ICANN rather than into the accounts of the registries.  That way that money - which aggregates to well more than a $Billion each year - could be used for some public services rather than paying dividends to corporate shareholders. (PIR, at least, distributes a chunk of its registry fee profits to support internet technical entities.)     --karl--

If I may kick over the chess board... What underlies just about all these problems is the very notion that one can register a domain name and not put it to use yet still retain rights. You can't go to the USPTO or WIPO and just register clever strings and expect protection for them, e.g., sell them on the market, sue infringers, etc. Fundamental to trademark protection is that they are used in commerce. You have to provide evidence of use in commerce to tm orgs when you register, and on each renewal. And your rights can be terminated if someone can show the mark represents no good or service. That's a much higher bar than "bad faith". Even ICANN's Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) requires this evidence to tie your trademark to certain domain rights -- if nothing else consider that an existence proof before countering that it would be too difficult, we do it now. 250+ years of experience told the tm orgs one has to do that or else we'd have what the domain system has now, a non-stop landrush for strings and a demand that other entities (e.g., ICANN via UDRP/URS, courts, etc) should expend whatever resources necessary to protect these string rights. Why? Because, and this touches on Evan's points, at the root (ahem) of trademark rights are consumer protections, not rights in ownership. The latter are a result. The purpose of a tm is to protect a consumer so they know when they buy a box of Acme Soap it is highly likely to be a product of the Acme Soap company and anything else is civil and/or criminal fraud. We came close to this concept with secure websites and certificates etc. but it's somewhat tangential, more like the holograms Microsoft et al puts on their optical media and similar (e.g., license activation.) Instead ICANN has created effectively a type of fiat currency -- perhaps an economics historian can help me focus that term -- but an abstract object with speculative value even absent any actual usage. It's worse than that since currency generally has the same value w/in a type (e.g., each US dollar is worth about the same) whereas every single domain string is subject to individual valuation. And every single domain name represents a type of monopoly on that string whereas, e.g., any US dollar (or Euro, whatever) is as good as any other. Namespaces are not new or unique. Telephone numbers, postal addresses, national identification numbers, personal names (go ahead try to launch a singing career calling yourself Beyonce or Sting), etc. IANA manages hundreds of them such as MAC addresses for your wi-fi and ethernet devices. The problem here goes very deep and trying to patch it up with price controls etc really is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, putting lipstick on the pig, closing the barn door after the horse is long gone, whatever. And the idea that trademark orgs like WIPO or USPTO could hold back "premium" trademarks and charge much higher prices as we allow registries to do is laughable self-dealing idiocy. This entire structure smacks so much of the foxes guarding the henhouse that to be honest it is a chilling indictment of the very concept of "multi-stakeholderism". The emperors really have no clothes. Which is to say no legal and moral structure other than whatever serves the participants' own selfish interests which amounts to who shows up at a table for a vote. Perhaps someone with better economics history credentials can explain what a bad corner this industry has painted itself into and why a few reforms here and there probably won't fix it. Right now, to me, it all resembles the sort of structure tinpot dictators and their corrupt cronies devise. I realize people desperately like to think better of themselves. All ICANN say is: Sorry! If the shoe fits... -- -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*

+1 Domain name speculation is very destructive since it requires potential users who have real businesses or needs to jump through hoops and often be blocked from a reasonable domain name. John

On Jun 28, 2019, at 8:16 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:

Oh gawd yes. Agree with everything. Thanks, Barry.

While both Barry and Karl have their indictments of the MSM, this is the rationale that rings true to me.

From day one of my involvement in ICANN I have wished that it adopted a "use it or lose it" regime for domains as exists for trademarks. That would eliminate the speculation problem overnight.

- Evan

On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 15:40, <bzs@theworld.com <mailto:bzs@theworld.com>> wrote:

If I may kick over the chess board...

What underlies just about all these problems is the very notion that one can register a domain name and not put it to use yet still retain rights.

You can't go to the USPTO or WIPO and just register clever strings and expect protection for them, e.g., sell them on the market, sue infringers, etc.

Fundamental to trademark protection is that they are used in commerce.

You have to provide evidence of use in commerce to tm orgs when you register, and on each renewal.

And your rights can be terminated if someone can show the mark represents no good or service. That's a much higher bar than "bad faith".

Even ICANN's Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) requires this evidence to tie your trademark to certain domain rights -- if nothing else consider that an existence proof before countering that it would be too difficult, we do it now.

250+ years of experience told the tm orgs one has to do that or else we'd have what the domain system has now, a non-stop landrush for strings and a demand that other entities (e.g., ICANN via UDRP/URS, courts, etc) should expend whatever resources necessary to protect these string rights.

Why?

Because, and this touches on Evan's points, at the root (ahem) of trademark rights are consumer protections, not rights in ownership. The latter are a result.

The purpose of a tm is to protect a consumer so they know when they buy a box of Acme Soap it is highly likely to be a product of the Acme Soap company and anything else is civil and/or criminal fraud.

We came close to this concept with secure websites and certificates etc. but it's somewhat tangential, more like the holograms Microsoft et al puts on their optical media and similar (e.g., license activation.)

Instead ICANN has created effectively a type of fiat currency -- perhaps an economics historian can help me focus that term -- but an abstract object with speculative value even absent any actual usage.

It's worse than that since currency generally has the same value w/in a type (e.g., each US dollar is worth about the same) whereas every single domain string is subject to individual valuation.

And every single domain name represents a type of monopoly on that string whereas, e.g., any US dollar (or Euro, whatever) is as good as any other.

Namespaces are not new or unique.

Telephone numbers, postal addresses, national identification numbers, personal names (go ahead try to launch a singing career calling yourself Beyonce or Sting), etc.

IANA manages hundreds of them such as MAC addresses for your wi-fi and ethernet devices.

The problem here goes very deep and trying to patch it up with price controls etc really is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, putting lipstick on the pig, closing the barn door after the horse is long gone, whatever.

And the idea that trademark orgs like WIPO or USPTO could hold back "premium" trademarks and charge much higher prices as we allow registries to do is laughable self-dealing idiocy.

This entire structure smacks so much of the foxes guarding the henhouse that to be honest it is a chilling indictment of the very concept of "multi-stakeholderism".

The emperors really have no clothes.

Which is to say no legal and moral structure other than whatever serves the participants' own selfish interests which amounts to who shows up at a table for a vote.

Perhaps someone with better economics history credentials can explain what a bad corner this industry has painted itself into and why a few reforms here and there probably won't fix it.

Right now, to me, it all resembles the sort of structure tinpot dictators and their corrupt cronies devise.

I realize people desperately like to think better of themselves.

All ICANN say is: Sorry! If the shoe fits...

-- -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.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@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large>

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.

-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch or @el56 _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

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 Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 14:43, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote: In other words, over a period of nearly 35 years of business we have not

found domain name speculators an impediment to our business.

Here's another, anecdotal datapoint: I have been involved in the Internet for nearly as long. But it's been helping family, friends, small businesses, colleges, religious institutions, and refugees in camps. I've worked with entrepreneurs both new and established, struggling to make a presence on the Internet and finding that their first 20 choices were only available at an aftermarket premium. The result is that they either had to: - change their brand name to suit the available names (this has happened more than once) - agonize over whether to settle for a domain name using hyphens - pay a lesser premium in a new TLD they don't know is fully reachable - resign themselves to having a non-memorable (ie, shitty) domain and using other strategies to lead people to them. I have seen all four scenarios in play. That's reality not faced 35-year insiders. The "it works for me, therefore it's not a problem" attitude sucks when I call tech support and it's not very useful here either. Do we really want to impose what is in essence a $Billion+ tax on the internet

every year in the form of fiat registry fees above costs in order to fight some chimera of speculation?

Based on the scenario you described, heck yeah I'm fine with that. I'd prefer that the proceeds went towards public education (ie, the diff between a gTLD and ccTLD) and abuse prevention, but that's a nit. It's like asking me if I have a problem with increased tax on cigarettes, ammunition, or carbon. - Evan

Good day/night all. Having carefully read the contributions of Karl and Evan on this topic, I must say that I lean more on Evan’s side. But this is by and large irrelevant for what I want to say. What I find unfortunate is that we seem unable to bring these two great minds at the same table collaborating for a mutually acceptable solution rather than insisting in making their own points - that the other party rebuts with equal insistence. I think that we all have by now understood the points. The question is whether we do have a mediation possible that will be acceptable for both parties that have anyway a common ground in the attention towards the diverse user community. Can we try to think out of the box? Can we propose a price cap that differentiates between existing registrations and new registrations? Can we propose to analyse what means “use” and “not use” and instead of a flat increase in fees have a diversified fee depending on use (non-use being subject to a higher fee, obviously)? Can we propose to set limits for the secondary market, like for instance a limit for the sell/buy ratio? Can we propose that the domain fee not be fixed but related to the market value of the domain? I know that most, if not all, the examples I am giving will be proven (or supposed) impracticable, but that should not stop us from brainstorming on what could be a common ALAC position even outside the straightjacket of the perceived limitations that ICANN is providing us - I am sure that others will have better ideas to throw in for discussion in search of a common proposal instead of the basically “well, we really don’t know” that is the only possible outcome if we only stand in contraposition of eachother. In my opinion, for too long we have been held hostage of an externally defined picket fence. It is time that we start thinking whether there is something that has to be said and done for internet users in their own interest, and not just as a reaction to the topics that are of interest to other parts of the multi-stakeholder community. And I have the belief (illusion?) that the ATLAS III meeting in few months can be the cornerstone for building a strategy for ALAC that is fully focused on Internet users. Cheers, Roberto

On 29.06.2019, at 02:03, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:

On 6/28/19 2:36 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

...

Here's another, anecdotal datapoint: I have been involved in the Internet for nearly as long. But it's been helping family, friends, small businesses, colleges, religious institutions, and refugees in camps. I've worked with entrepreneurs both new and established, struggling to make a presence on the Internet and finding that their first 20 choices were only available at an aftermarket premium. The result is that they either had to: * change their brand name to suit the available names (this has happened more than once) * agonize over whether to settle for a domain name using hyphens * pay a lesser premium in a new TLD they don't know is fully reachable * resign themselves to having a non-memorable (ie, shitty) domain and using other strategies to lead people to them.

I agree that it is sad that we don't live in a world of pink ponies, unicorns, perfect equity, and no competition for resources.

Your people want "brand names" - which I read as a synonym for "trademark" - and find that someone else has already registered it?

That's pretty normal life in the land of trade names. Somebody got there first. Somebody else go there too late. That is not speculation, that is not abuse.

Athol Fugard wrote that "the saddest words ... are 'too late'."

Or are you arguing that there is some sort of elevated goodness attribute that should allow "family, friends, small businesses, colleges, religious institutions, and refugees" to preempt prior uses? And who shall be the judge that weighs applicants to measure who is the more worthy?

(Given that my wife and I make large contributions of our time, labor, and money to non-profit and charitable organizations, we might find that kind of preemptive power useful. But I doubt that such a thing would always be perceived as fair or just by the prior users.)

(And I do wonder about the inclusion of "small business" and "entrepreneurs" in that list - I'd love to have my small businesses to have a power of preemption. And in the several start-ups that I've done I would have welcomed the ability to take a domain name away from another prior user.)

Are you focusing on the notion of "use"? If so, what is "use" of a domain name? Must it resolve - for any query from any source - to an IP address, or a TXT record or something? If that requirement were put into place you can bet that every registrar will quickly deploy a "sufficient to pass muster" resolver service for its customers to use.

(Since you mentioned entrepreneurs - A common practice in start ups is to register a portfolio of domain names as candidates for products or corporate names, to hold them in private for several years, and then to sell off the ones that were not selected to be put into play. Does that constitute a "use" or an "abuse"?)

Regarding hyphenated or even non-semantic names - Anyone these days who depends on humans making semantic sense out of a domain name is living in days of fading glory. Search engines, especially when embedded in browser address bars, have long ago started to diminish the use of domain names as carriers of semantic content. And the rise of application handles such as facebook or twitter names has diminished that further.

--karl-- _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

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.

It is not often that someone characterized me as supporting the status quo at ICANN.  ;-) I am in strong agreement with Evan that the stakeholder model is a failure. I, obviously am a staunch advocate of absolute bottom up - by humans - governance.  But I know that I'm not winning that argument. Political and economic forces are building that may drive the net to regionalize - either around nations, big companies [e.g. Facebook or Google], or institutions [e.g. the US military] .  And that could bring a plethora of mechanisms, possibly inconsistent. My own sense is to prepare for that and seek mitigations rather than to try to resist to the last breath. What to do about ICANN?  Well, first we should agree upon the job(s) that ICANN, or a constellation of ICANN spin-offs, should be doing.  (And, similarly, what it should not be doing.) I've always felt that ICANN was too vaguely defined - for instance has ICANN ever come up with a definition of what is this "Internet" that they are dealing with?  (Until now this has been a somewhat academic complaint, but there are non-technical forces afoot that may make this quite important.) Much as I like to make noises about competing DNS roots, I recognize that the current system, technically, is quite well run and that there is no reason for technical changes to the operations of the vastly dominant DNS root system.  (There are reasons to consider new protocols post DNS, but that's another topic altogether.)  Political forces may drive the world to have multiple, but I hope largely consistent, root systems.  And we are in luck that DNSSEC can still work in such a universe.  But ICANN and the root server operators have set a standard of technical performance that aspirants will have to work hard to match. The IETF and ICANN have done a rather good job of dealing with the linguistic and cultural issues - it's hard to stuff all of those issues into what is really a sequence of no more than 256 bytes/octets composed of chunks each no larger than 64 octets. And the IETF and ICANN can declare the provisioning protocols used by registrars and registries to be a success. ICANN (and IANA and the IETF) can claim success in getting DNSSEC in place (even if it is still under-utilized.) I don't agree with the business model that ICANN has imposed - but it is here and in place; we can't just cancel it.  (But we can slowly change it.) But while that business model structure is in place - and it will be in place for a long time - part of ICANN needs to manage it. But I don't think that that management needs to be in one unified ICANN entity.  Some parts could be entirely spun off - IANA really needs no tie to ICANN at all - it's tie to ICANN is merely a matter of administrative convenience (and if IANA is spun-off, it would take the ties to the RIR's with it.)  It would be a small thing, but ICANN could relinquish the L root server job to another organization. It's in the business practices area and the bias in favor of intellectual property rights over other rights where ICANN is most in need of serious reform. Thee are some parts which could be split out and about which I think we could come to an agreement - for example, a chunk of ICANN that makes sure that "contracted parties" actually adhere to the contracts and respond to the public could be a useful and well confined spin-out. Similarly, as was mentioned the other day - the gap between legacy TLD registry costs and the ICANN defined registry fee (which is what the price-cap removal stuff is all about) ought to accrue to a public-spirited ICANN spin-off rather than the legacy registry.  We can argue about the level of the mandated registry fee, but that's a separate issue and involves a long and difficult discussion whether ICANN (and ICANN mandated pricing) ought to be used as a tool to fight some internet evils or whether that should be done by other means. The three-way fight between registrants, trademark protectors, and law enforcement over "whois" and accuracy will continue no matter what we do.  But the stakeholder model has, in my opinion, given too little weight to those whose most immediate interest is privacy (I don't think that anyone is saying that IP rights or law enforcement are not important interests, rather this is a debate about relative weights of the interests and procedures to protect those interests.) There was a small tweak to the stakeholder system that I suggested decades ago but was roundly ignored but which I still feel could be of value: This would be to require credentials from those claiming stakeholder roles.  For instance, does ICANN validate that those representing corporations actually have the permission of the corporation to speak in ICANN on the corporations' behalf.  Same for those who claim to represent governments - do they really have the credentials from the proper authorities in those governments to act within ICANN?  Such a requirement might fill those seats with people who have a more synoptic, broad point of view that encompasses more than whatever narrow issue drove that person to engage with ICANN. An overall issue for ICANN is its tendency for expansion of both of its role and the size of its org chart.  Even though revenue is down there is still too much of it that is giving people ideas about new things to do.  And the number of employees has grown beyond my comprehension.  (I too often hear conversations that are almost as if they were a Hollywood movie studio looking for the next sequel of some successful film - ICANN, the Ultimate Generation To the Stars and Beyond....)  I believe that the stakeholder model has contributed its piece to this desire to extend, as has the tsunami of cash from the big round of TLDs a few years back.  But I think the largest cause has been a long held practice of ICANN's Board of Directors to hire "big name" Presidents (at ever more grand salaries) and let that person run the shop with relatively weak oversight or constraint from the board thus resulting in mission creep - or mission gallop - and ever growing org charts and staff.     --karl-- On 6/29/19 4:57 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Hi Roberto,

Thanks for the good words. I agree about the unfortunate situation we now have of an inability to have a true debate on this. But the biggest problem with gap between my position and Karl's is that his is the status quo at ICANN and has zero incentive to give any ground. There is no reason to change existing entitlements, no interest to do any thinking inside the box or out. There are no minor consequences for bad behavior, the only remedy is the total abandonment of ICANN which is already begun by China and Russia and increases in popularity as an idea every time the ITU meets.

What is telling is that among all the opinions here -- Karl's Barry's, mine and others -- is a collective assertion that the ICANN model of multi-stakeholderism is a failure. We all have different reasons but the same conclusion is reasonable from multiple directions, and it shares the position implied by the ITU. So far, what has kept ICANN safe has been the FUD that a multilateral approach must surely be worse than a multistakeholder one. But with every year that passes of excess, entitlement, public harm and failed industry failed self-regulation, ICANN's case worsens. Change is coming, all that makes me wonder is whether the change will be incremental or cataclysmic. We certainly know it won't come from the "empowered community", which is simply a retrenchment of ICANN's unaccountability outside of its bubble.

Given the entrenchment of social darwinism -- well-expressed by Karl -- deep inside ICANN's culture, I have serious concerns about its willingness -- let alone ability -- to yield to even the middle ground you suggest. If that is the case, is even seeking a middle ground worth the effort? - Evan

On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 at 08:26, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com <mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>> wrote:

Good day/night all. Having carefully read the contributions of Karl and Evan on this topic, I must say that I lean more on Evan’s side. But this is by and large irrelevant for what I want to say. What I find unfortunate is that we seem unable to bring these two great minds at the same table collaborating for a mutually acceptable solution rather than insisting in making their own points - that the other party rebuts with equal insistence. I think that we all have by now understood the points. The question is whether we do have a mediation possible that will be acceptable for both parties that have anyway a common ground in the attention towards the diverse user community. Can we try to think out of the box? Can we propose a price cap that differentiates between existing registrations and new registrations? Can we propose to analyse what means “use” and “not use” and instead of a flat increase in fees have a diversified fee depending on use (non-use being subject to a higher fee, obviously)? Can we propose to set limits for the secondary market, like for instance a limit for the sell/buy ratio? Can we propose that the domain fee not be fixed but related to the market value of the domain? I know that most, if not all, the examples I am giving will be proven (or supposed) impracticable, but that should not stop us from brainstorming on what could be a common ALAC position even outside the straightjacket of the perceived limitations that ICANN is providing us - I am sure that others will have better ideas to throw in for discussion in search of a common proposal instead of the basically “well, we really don’t know” that is the only possible outcome if we only stand in contraposition of eachother. In my opinion, for too long we have been held hostage of an externally defined picket fence. It is time that we start thinking whether there is something that has to be said and done for internet users in their own interest, and not just as a reaction to the topics that are of interest to other parts of the multi-stakeholder community. And I have the belief (illusion?) that the ATLAS III meeting in few months can be the cornerstone for building a strategy for ALAC that is fully focused on Internet users. Cheers, Roberto

> On 29.06.2019, at 02:03, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com <mailto:karl@cavebear.com>> wrote: > > > On 6/28/19 2:36 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >> Here's another, anecdotal datapoint: I have been involved in the Internet for nearly as long. But it's been helping family, friends, small businesses, colleges, religious institutions, and refugees in camps. I've worked with entrepreneurs both new and established, struggling to make a presence on the Internet and finding that their first 20 choices were only available at an aftermarket premium. The result is that they either had to: >>  * change their brand name to suit the available names (this has >>    happened more than once) >>  * agonize over whether to settle for a domain name using hyphens >>  * pay a lesser premium in a new TLD they don't know is fully reachable >>  * resign themselves to having a non-memorable (ie, shitty) domain and >>    using other strategies to lead people to them. > > I agree that it is sad that we don't live in a world of pink ponies, unicorns, perfect equity, and no competition for resources. > > Your people want "brand names" - which I read as a synonym for "trademark" - and find that someone else has already registered it? > > That's pretty normal life in the land of trade names. Somebody got there first.  Somebody else go there too late. That is not speculation, that is not abuse. > > Athol Fugard wrote that "the saddest words ... are 'too late'." > > Or are you arguing that there is some sort of elevated goodness attribute that should allow "family, friends, small businesses, colleges, religious institutions, and refugees" to preempt prior uses? And who shall be the judge that weighs applicants to measure who is the more worthy? > > (Given that my wife and I make large contributions of our time, labor, and money to non-profit and charitable organizations, we might find that kind of preemptive power useful.  But I doubt that such a thing would always be perceived as fair or just by the prior users.) > > (And I do wonder about the inclusion of "small business" and "entrepreneurs" in that list - I'd love to have my small businesses to have a power of preemption.  And in the several start-ups that I've done I would have welcomed the ability to take a domain name away from another prior user.) > > Are you focusing on the notion of "use"?  If so, what is "use" of a domain name?  Must it resolve - for any query from any source - to an IP address, or a TXT record or something? If that requirement were put into place you can bet that every registrar will quickly deploy a "sufficient to pass muster" resolver service for its customers to use. > > (Since you mentioned entrepreneurs - A common practice in start ups is to register a portfolio of domain names as candidates for products or corporate names, to hold them in private for several years, and then to sell off the ones that were not selected to be put into play.  Does that constitute a "use" or an "abuse"?) > > Regarding hyphenated or even non-semantic names - Anyone these days who depends on humans making semantic sense out of a domain name is living in days of fading glory.  Search engines, especially when embedded in browser address bars, have long ago started to diminish the use of domain names as carriers of semantic content.  And the rise of application handles such as facebook or twitter names has diminished that further. > >       --karl-- > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > 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@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

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.

-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch or @el56

On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 at 04:20, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:

Given the entrenchment of social darwinism -- well-expressed by Karl -- deep inside ICANN's culture, I have serious concerns about its willingness -- let alone ability -- to yield to even the middle ground you suggest. If that is the case, is even seeking a middle ground worth the effort?

And the alternative is?

I don't know. There seems little more that we can do from the side of moderation to convince the status quo to yield anything. That's one of the reasons I have withdrawn from deep participation in ICANN, after a a long time trying I have concluded that the task looks futile. To me it appears that the Internet will do what it does best, rerouting around obstacles, including the obstacle called ICANN. A a result, there is an increasing trend to go beyond "memorable" domain names. (As Jonathan knows, I wanted that issue to be front-and-centre in CCT investigations.) One could even make a reasonable case that Google and Facebook would not be so dominant in the Internet now had domain names had been usefully deployed. But it's too late to reboot that. In fact, IMO things have become worse not better. The IANA transition eliminated ICANN's last shred of external accountability, leaving control in an "empowered" (100%-pure Doublespeak) community that makes the Board only really accountable to those inside the bubble. It's no surprise that voices against ALAC have risen as the level of industry entitlement grows, seemingly without limit. See threads elsewhere about a new gTLD expansion round coming, clearly desired by nobody but the domain industry, but coming nonetheless. IMO, ALAC is utterly powerless to affect change, especially given its lack of focus. This is why I concentrate my current participation here on focusing ALAC to understand and advance end-user needs exclusively; it's our best shot at remaining relevant. In the end, only some kind of external stimulus will prod ICANN to change course. Unprotected by treaty, I believe that eventually ICANN will encounter ever-more hostility at the ITU, by individual states or blocs of states. Or perhaps there will be some event or action, a scandal that publicly exposes the culture of corruption and/or lack of public-mindedness. Eventually ICANN's arrogance will push even neutral players to determine that a change is in order, that even the feared multilateralism can't be worse than what exists now. What I don't know is whether ICANN's "Entitled Community" (which is the proper name for it) will see the threat in time enough to change, or whether it will remain oblivious and/or defiant right until catastrophic change. I have a genuine concern about the potential damage to the technical components of ICANN which generally work well, that would come with an overhaul of the trade/political components. This may be an unsatisfying answer, but it's the best that I can conclude. - Evan

"When I think of my personal role in ALAC I am not defending the interests of myself, but rather of my family members, friends and colleagues who can barely boot up their laptops and for whom I'm usually tech support -- how does ICANN's work affect them? At my peak of ALAC involvement I had a challenge keeping up with all the moving parts, most of which has been made overly complex so to deter the amateurs. Little has changed. We talk a good game about outreach but it takes a special kind of masochism for someone to be sufficiently capable in ICANN processes who does not have a financial interest in its decisions. Its also expensive, even for those who are subsidized." Amen <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 12:42 PM Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 at 04:20, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:

...

Given the entrenchment of social darwinism -- well-expressed by Karl -- deep inside ICANN's culture, I have serious concerns about its willingness -- let alone ability -- to yield to even the middle ground you suggest. If that is the case, is even seeking a middle ground worth the effort?

And the alternative is?

I don't know. There seems little more that we can do from the side of moderation to convince the status quo to yield anything. That's one of the reasons I have withdrawn from deep participation in ICANN, after a a long time trying I have concluded that the task looks futile. To me it appears that the Internet will do what it does best, rerouting around obstacles, including the obstacle called ICANN. A a result, there is an increasing trend to go beyond "memorable" domain names. (As Jonathan knows, I wanted that issue to be front-and-centre in CCT investigations.) One could even make a reasonable case that Google and Facebook would not be so dominant in the Internet now had domain names had been usefully deployed. But it's too late to reboot that.

In fact, IMO things have become worse not better. The IANA transition eliminated ICANN's last shred of external accountability, leaving control in an "empowered" (100%-pure Doublespeak) community that makes the Board only really accountable to those inside the bubble. It's no surprise that voices against ALAC have risen as the level of industry entitlement grows, seemingly without limit. See threads elsewhere about a new gTLD expansion round coming, clearly desired by nobody but the domain industry, but coming nonetheless. IMO, ALAC is utterly powerless to affect change, especially given its lack of focus. This is why I concentrate my current participation here on focusing ALAC to understand and advance end-user needs exclusively; it's our best shot at remaining relevant.

In the end, only some kind of external stimulus will prod ICANN to change course. Unprotected by treaty, I believe that eventually ICANN will encounter ever-more hostility at the ITU, by individual states or blocs of states. Or perhaps there will be some event or action, a scandal that publicly exposes the culture of corruption and/or lack of public-mindedness. Eventually ICANN's arrogance will push even neutral players to determine that a change is in order, that even the feared multilateralism can't be worse than what exists now. What I don't know is whether ICANN's "Entitled Community" (which is the proper name for it) will see the threat in time enough to change, or whether it will remain oblivious and/or defiant right until catastrophic change. I have a genuine concern about the potential damage to the technical components of ICANN which generally work well, that would come with an overhaul of the trade/political components.

This may be an unsatisfying answer, but it's the best that I can conclude.

- Evan

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

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.

-- 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 Sun, Jun 30, 2019, 11:38 PM <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:

Before it was removed in November 2016 the "Criticisms" section of Wikipedia's "Multistakeholder Governance Model" read:

Criticism of multistakeholderism comes from Paul R. Lehto, J.D.{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}}, who fears that in multistakeholderism, those who would be lobbyists become legislators, and nobody else has a vote. Lehto states that "In a democracy, it is a scandal when lobbyists have so much influence that they write the drafts of laws. But in multistakeholder situations they take that scandal to a whole new level: those who would be lobbyists in a democracy (corporations, experts, civil society) become the legislators themselves, and dispense with all public elections and not only write the laws but pass them, enforce them, and in some cases even set up courts of arbitration that are usually conditioned on waiving the right to go to the court system set up by democracies. A vote is just a minimum requirement of justice. Without a vote, law is just force inflicted by the wealthy and powerful. Multistakeholderism is a coup d’etat against democracy by those who would merely be lobbyists in a democratic system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance_model...

Sound familiar?

It doesn't even touch upon how those lobbyist/legislators are chosen except by implication.

Sometimes summarized as:

Multistakeholderism: A governance structure of, by, and for the lobbyists.

It would be harsh to criticize the multi-stakeholder model in such strong terms. In this phase of evolution there are imbalances, yes. But could be effectively addressed as we progress. Sivasubramanian M

-- -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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

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 7/1/19 12:36 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote

So, in short, how can ICANN get rid od the supposedly failing multi-stakeholder model and go back to what Paul R. Letho defines “democracy”? Or, in simple words, how would a non-multi-stakeholder model be designed and implemented for ICANN?

That's pretty easy: Resurrect the system of nominations and elections from year 2000 (but expanded to cover the entire board-of-directors.)  Despite the denials of some, that system worked.  Yes, there were problems with the registration - including several caused by ICANN itself.  But that could have been cured on subsequent rounds. The claim that in some regions (most particularly Asia/Pacific) that some large corporations "motivated" their employees probably had some truth.  But absent those elections those corporations in a "stakeholder" (or lobbyist) system most likely would have simply acted through the more certain and direct tool of those captive lobbyist/stakeholders than through the less certain tool of trying to influence individual electors. Influence by those with size and wealth so that they can engage in any forum at any time and at any location will always be a problem, no matter the system. In addition, to elections themselves, ICANN should put into place the protections afforded by law to allow the voting members to get the information they need to make informed choices and to take certain limited actions in certain extraordinary circumstances. The protections are not unreasonable; they have been honed on the stone of long practice and experience with ICANN-like organizations. This change would a representative system, not a direct one - the real authority (and responsibility) between elections would remain where it ought to be (and legally is): vested in the board of directors.  At the next election the voters can replace those directors who fail to meet the voters' standards or whose pattern of decisions is not in accord with their desires. Lobbyists would have to convince voters or convince the board members (hopefully via open and transparent means.) By-the-way, in that sense, we are all lobbyists for our own interests.  But as individuals we are all lobbyists of roughly the same size.  We can't say the same about institutional lobbyists/stakeholders who are paid to advocate for the institutional goals 24x7x365.  Better a system based on rough equality than a system that naively presumes that giants don't have greater strength.         --karl--

Excellent. So, tomorrow we start a global vote for the ICANN Board. I am sure that you do not want to have some parts of the world's population to be at a disadvantage over others - the vote must be an opportunity that is equal to everybody, regardless geography, political regime, availability of Internet connection, level of alphabetisation, and so on. So now, in the current world situation at the 1. July 2019, how can you ensure that you have the same level of participation in downtown NYC and in the steppes of Central Asia? It is obvious to me that if this is not achieved the system will be fundamentally biased. Does this sound like a discussion that we already had, and maybe more than once, in the last 20 years? Cheers, Roberto

On 01.07.2019, at 22:12, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:

On 7/1/19 12:36 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote

...

So, in short, how can ICANN get rid od the supposedly failing multi-stakeholder model and go back to what Paul R. Letho defines “democracy”? Or, in simple words, how would a non-multi-stakeholder model be designed and implemented for ICANN?

That's pretty easy: Resurrect the system of nominations and elections from year 2000 (but expanded to cover the entire board-of-directors.) Despite the denials of some, that system worked. Yes, there were problems with the registration - including several caused by ICANN itself. But that could have been cured on subsequent rounds.

The claim that in some regions (most particularly Asia/Pacific) that some large corporations "motivated" their employees probably had some truth. But absent those elections those corporations in a "stakeholder" (or lobbyist) system most likely would have simply acted through the more certain and direct tool of those captive lobbyist/stakeholders than through the less certain tool of trying to influence individual electors.

Influence by those with size and wealth so that they can engage in any forum at any time and at any location will always be a problem, no matter the system.

In addition, to elections themselves, ICANN should put into place the protections afforded by law to allow the voting members to get the information they need to make informed choices and to take certain limited actions in certain extraordinary circumstances. The protections are not unreasonable; they have been honed on the stone of long practice and experience with ICANN-like organizations.

This change would a representative system, not a direct one - the real authority (and responsibility) between elections would remain where it ought to be (and legally is): vested in the board of directors. At the next election the voters can replace those directors who fail to meet the voters' standards or whose pattern of decisions is not in accord with their desires.

Lobbyists would have to convince voters or convince the board members (hopefully via open and transparent means.)

By-the-way, in that sense, we are all lobbyists for our own interests. But as individuals we are all lobbyists of roughly the same size. We can't say the same about institutional lobbyists/stakeholders who are paid to advocate for the institutional goals 24x7x365. Better a system based on rough equality than a system that naively presumes that giants don't have greater strength.

--karl--

On 7/1/19 2:23 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

The bias is not just geographical, it's also one of competence and interest.

Individuals do not vote for the entities that govern automobile safety, or ISO committees, or bodies like ICAO which governs air travel, etc.

Two points: 1. 99% of what ICANN does is plain old economic, legal, or cultural social engineering. The claim that ICANN is so very technical that it can not be comprehended by normal people is a claim that does not survive inspection. For example, the recent discussion of price caps and trademark use of domain names are discussions without a whit of internet technical complexity and are exactly the kinds of things upon which normal people everywhere routinely have cogent opinions. A couple of decades ago I was surprised to learn that there are active, automated, commodity futures markets in places like Mongolia. That suggests that we ought not to be looking down upon "backward cousins" and, instead, respect people everywhere as intelligent and capable of comprehending their own interests and affairs. Else we would be building ICANN on the same paternalistic (I'm using the euphemistic word) principles that were expressed in the 19th century by King Leopold of Belgium and Queen Victoria of the UK when the exercised control over over "colonies". 2. Most regulatory bodies - and ICANN is most definitely a regulatory body - don't usually put those who are being regulated into the driver's seat. (Yes, those bodies often are captured or the influence of the regulated is domineering - but the companies don't usually get a direct yea/nay role.) Plus there are usually rules of administrative procedure that try to assure that there is at least a place onto which the general public can step and say, with compelling force "no, this shall not pass." If we want to follow the logic that ICANN need be controlled by those with expertise I would then argue that those of us who have all of the necessary skills are few and far between. Who among us has the bundle of experience needed? Internet techie, lawyer, IP address owner, trademark owner, domain name registrant, have an interest in a domain name registry, etc. --karl--

Roberto, You raise good questions but it may not be one or the other, MSM or not. Reforms are possible also. As are mixed systems which I believe ICANN claimed to be working towards for at least a while. Isn't that why At Large was formed? It just never itself much evolved into an "at large" organization and (probably because of that) never got much influence within ICANN. Governance structures per se are a complicated topic and it would be irresponsible for me or anyone else to just off-the-cuff suggest other structures in a discussion like this. But I have, at ICANN meetings addressing people involved, for example suggested their NomCom operate with greater transparency. Such as listing the candidates as is done with some of the non-NomCom seats (ASO/AC, IETF.) TBH it was met with derision and was explained to me like I was a child why that would be absolutely impossible. Mostly weak reasons as others listening seemed to agree later. They didn't necessarily agree with me 100% on every point, but they did agree I was just shrugged off, "they don't have to answer questions like that, and they won't as you just saw." In an instant I became Paul Footy. There must be some middle ground but it would take a lot of thought. The goal wouldn't be to eliminate the so-called "stakeholders", just to rebalance the processes. On July 1, 2019 at 19:36 roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com (Roberto Gaetano) wrote:

Hi Barry I believe that the picture drawn by Paul R. Letho is a caricature rather than an objective picture of the multi-stakeholderism - but this is by and large irrelevant for what I want to say.

Let’s assume that we embrace his theories and we get rid of the multi-stakeholder model. What happens? If I understand correctly, according to Paul R. Letho the stakeholders become again what they were in first place, i.e. lobbyists. So, by definition of lobbyist they will lobby somebody to get their interests taken care of. My first question is: whom are they lobbying? Translated into ICANN world, the only “who” I see is the ICANN Board. So, the second question: who are the ICANN Directors and how do they get elected? Up to now, according to the multi-stakeholder model, some are elected/nominated by different stakeholders - pardon me, lobbyists - while others are selected by the NomCom, that I assume should disappear if we get rid of the multi-stakeholder model, because its composition is again an instance of multi-stakeholderism. So, in short, how can ICANN get rid od the supposedly failing multi-stakeholder model and go back to what Paul R. Letho defines “democracy”? Or, in simple words, how would a non-multi-stakeholder model be designed and implemented for ICANN? Cheers, Roberto

...

On 01.07.2019, at 00:36, bzs@theworld.com wrote:

Before it was removed in November 2016 the "Criticisms" section of Wikipedia's "Multistakeholder Governance Model" read:

Criticism of multistakeholderism comes from Paul R. Lehto, J.D.{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}}, who fears that in multistakeholderism, those who would be lobbyists become legislators, and nobody else has a vote. Lehto states that "In a democracy, it is a scandal when lobbyists have so much influence that they write the drafts of laws. But in multistakeholder situations they take that scandal to a whole new level: those who would be lobbyists in a democracy (corporations, experts, civil society) become the legislators themselves, and dispense with all public elections and not only write the laws but pass them, enforce them, and in some cases even set up courts of arbitration that are usually conditioned on waiving the right to go to the court system set up by democracies. A vote is just a minimum requirement of justice. Without a vote, law is just force inflicted by the wealthy and powerful. Multistakeholderism is a coup d’etat against democracy by those who would merely be lobbyists in a democratic system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance_model...

Sound familiar?

It doesn't even touch upon how those lobbyist/legislators are chosen except by implication.

Sometimes summarized as:

Multistakeholderism: A governance structure of, by, and for the lobbyists.

-- -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*

-- -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*

Circle Id and Arstechnica the story as well https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/07/icann-eliminates-org-domain-pric... Glenn McKnight NARALO Secretariat mcknight.glenn@gmail.com http://toronto.ieee.ca/ IEEE Toronto SIGHT Chair glenn.mcknight@ieee.org skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight 289-830 6259 . On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 9:51 PM <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:

Roberto,

You raise good questions but it may not be one or the other, MSM or not.

Reforms are possible also.

As are mixed systems which I believe ICANN claimed to be working towards for at least a while. Isn't that why At Large was formed? It just never itself much evolved into an "at large" organization and (probably because of that) never got much influence within ICANN.

Governance structures per se are a complicated topic and it would be irresponsible for me or anyone else to just off-the-cuff suggest other structures in a discussion like this.

But I have, at ICANN meetings addressing people involved, for example suggested their NomCom operate with greater transparency. Such as listing the candidates as is done with some of the non-NomCom seats (ASO/AC, IETF.)

TBH it was met with derision and was explained to me like I was a child why that would be absolutely impossible. Mostly weak reasons as others listening seemed to agree later. They didn't necessarily agree with me 100% on every point, but they did agree I was just shrugged off, "they don't have to answer questions like that, and they won't as you just saw." In an instant I became Paul Footy.

There must be some middle ground but it would take a lot of thought.

The goal wouldn't be to eliminate the so-called "stakeholders", just to rebalance the processes.

On July 1, 2019 at 19:36 roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com (Roberto Gaetano) wrote:

...

Hi Barry I believe that the picture drawn by Paul R. Letho is a caricature rather than an objective picture of the multi-stakeholderism - but this is by and large irrelevant for what I want to say.

Let’s assume that we embrace his theories and we get rid of the multi-stakeholder model. What happens? If I understand correctly, according to Paul R. Letho the stakeholders become again what they were in first place, i.e. lobbyists. So, by definition of lobbyist they will lobby somebody to get their interests taken care of. My first question is: whom are they lobbying? Translated into ICANN world, the only “who” I see is the ICANN Board. So, the second question: who are the ICANN Directors and how do they get elected? Up to now, according to the multi-stakeholder model, some are elected/nominated by different stakeholders - pardon me, lobbyists - while others are selected by the NomCom, that I assume should disappear if we get rid of the multi-stakeholder model, because its composition is again an instance of multi-stakeholderism. So, in short, how can ICANN get rid od the supposedly failing multi-stakeholder model and go back to what Paul R. Letho defines “democracy”? Or, in simple words, how would a non-multi-stakeholder model be designed and implemented for ICANN? Cheers, Roberto

...

On 01.07.2019, at 00:36, bzs@theworld.com wrote:

Before it was removed in November 2016 the "Criticisms" section of Wikipedia's "Multistakeholder Governance Model" read:

Criticism of multistakeholderism comes from Paul R. Lehto, J.D.{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}}, who fears that in multistakeholderism, those who would be lobbyists become legislators, and nobody else has a vote. Lehto states that "In a democracy, it is a scandal when lobbyists have so much influence that they write the drafts of laws. But in multistakeholder situations they take that scandal to a whole new level: those who would be lobbyists in a democracy (corporations, experts, civil society) become the legislators themselves, and dispense with all public elections and not only write the laws but pass them, enforce them, and in some cases even set up courts of arbitration that are usually conditioned on waiving the right to go to the court system set up by democracies. A vote is just a minimum requirement of justice. Without a vote, law is just force inflicted by the wealthy and powerful. Multistakeholderism is a coup d’etat against democracy by those who would merely be lobbyists in a democratic system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multistakeholder_governance_model...

...

Sound familiar?

It doesn't even touch upon how those lobbyist/legislators are chosen except by implication.

Sometimes summarized as:

Multistakeholderism: A governance structure of, by, and for the lobbyists.

-- -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*

-- -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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

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 June 28, 2019 at 17:03 karl@cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) wrote:

On 6/28/19 2:36 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

...

Here's another, anecdotal datapoint: I have been involved in the Internet for nearly as long. But it's been helping family, friends, small businesses, colleges, religious institutions, and refugees in camps. I've worked with entrepreneurs both new and established, struggling to make a presence on the Internet and finding that their first 20 choices were only available at an aftermarket premium. The result is that they either had to:

* change their brand name to suit the available names (this has happened more than once)

Similar: The masters of this are in Hollywood. As far as I can tell they'll do anything rather than pay someone so find something like X-MENFILMS.COM (catchy, no? that's real.) And the drug companies who just come up with ever more bizarre drug-sounding strings like VYLEESI and EVENITY (those are both real and have .COM sites.)

...

* agonize over whether to settle for a domain name using hyphens

I've heard from the kids on the street that hyphenated names are popular in much of East Asia because if your native language is Chinese or Japanese (etc) you have a lot of trouble parsing a string like penisland.com.

Regarding hyphenated or even non-semantic names - Anyone these days who depends on humans making semantic sense out of a domain name is living in days of fading glory. Search engines, especially when embedded in browser address bars, have long ago started to diminish the use of domain names as carriers of semantic content. And the rise of application handles such as facebook or twitter names has diminished that further.

The canned response to that has become: Once they find it via search it's good if the domain is memorable because if they search again they might find your competitor. And there are other media from bizcards to billboards. I've seen printed ads and TV ads which try to say search for something or other rather than try to remember our domain (etc) but, again, you'd better not have any very similar competitors. -- -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*

Karl Your attack on the trademark analogy is off base. For trademarks to be registered you have to show use. That is not true of domain name speculators. Even for common law trademark, you have to show a first use. John More ISOC-DC

On Jun 28, 2019, at 8:03 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:

...

On 6/28/19 2:36 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Here's another, anecdotal datapoint: I have been involved in the Internet for nearly as long. But it's been helping family, friends, small businesses, colleges, religious institutions, and refugees in camps. I've worked with entrepreneurs both new and established, struggling to make a presence on the Internet and finding that their first 20 choices were only available at an aftermarket premium. The result is that they either had to: * change their brand name to suit the available names (this has happened more than once) * agonize over whether to settle for a domain name using hyphens * pay a lesser premium in a new TLD they don't know is fully reachable * resign themselves to having a non-memorable (ie, shitty) domain and using other strategies to lead people to them.

I agree that it is sad that we don't live in a world of pink ponies, unicorns, perfect equity, and no competition for resources.

Your people want "brand names" - which I read as a synonym for "trademark" - and find that someone else has already registered it?

That's pretty normal life in the land of trade names. Somebody got there first. Somebody else go there too late. That is not speculation, that is not abuse.

Athol Fugard wrote that "the saddest words ... are 'too late'."

Or are you arguing that there is some sort of elevated goodness attribute that should allow "family, friends, small businesses, colleges, religious institutions, and refugees" to preempt prior uses? And who shall be the judge that weighs applicants to measure who is the more worthy?

(Given that my wife and I make large contributions of our time, labor, and money to non-profit and charitable organizations, we might find that kind of preemptive power useful. But I doubt that such a thing would always be perceived as fair or just by the prior users.)

(And I do wonder about the inclusion of "small business" and "entrepreneurs" in that list - I'd love to have my small businesses to have a power of preemption. And in the several start-ups that I've done I would have welcomed the ability to take a domain name away from another prior user.)

Are you focusing on the notion of "use"? If so, what is "use" of a domain name? Must it resolve - for any query from any source - to an IP address, or a TXT record or something? If that requirement were put into place you can bet that every registrar will quickly deploy a "sufficient to pass muster" resolver service for its customers to use.

(Since you mentioned entrepreneurs - A common practice in start ups is to register a portfolio of domain names as candidates for products or corporate names, to hold them in private for several years, and then to sell off the ones that were not selected to be put into play. Does that constitute a "use" or an "abuse"?)

Regarding hyphenated or even non-semantic names - Anyone these days who depends on humans making semantic sense out of a domain name is living in days of fading glory. Search engines, especially when embedded in browser address bars, have long ago started to diminish the use of domain names as carriers of semantic content. And the rise of application handles such as facebook or twitter names has diminished that further.

--karl--

Good Day all, Could we perhaps move this discussion to a discord server ? It would be much easier to follow using something like that vs via email. Just a suggestion, Kale Williams Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. -------- Original message -------- From: Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> Date: 01/07/2019 3:57 pm (GMT+00:00) To: JOHN MORE <morej1@mac.com> Cc: LAC-Discuss-en <lac-discuss-en@icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] [At-Large] - Price caps - was: The Case for Regulatory Capture at ICANN | Review Signal Blog The foundation of the US requirement of "use in commerce" is to satisfy the Article I commerce clause power of Congress to create trademark law. Other countries don't need to overcome that legislative-authority hurdle. Perhaps one might imply "use in commerce" as a necessary thing for when the US Dept of Commerce got involved in "NewCo" (eventually ICANN) in the first place, but nobody really inquired about authority. (Or rather, we inquired, but we got hand-waving responses best characterized by the voids rather than the substance.) I've registered a whole pile of marks on the basis of "Intent to use". Sure, I may eventually have to show that I eventually used that mark, but in the meantime I've got a trade/service mark without actual use in commerce. (In my own work we actually do intend to use - our trademark attorney would come after us if we didn't - but I can't say that of everyone.) There's an interesting additional twist which is that after the five year first period of US trademarks (and the filing of the right papers and fees) the US mark becomes incontestable. Even domain names don't attain the status of "incontestable". In the domain name space "use" is a very vague term. Does it mean that a name actually has some RR records attached. If that's "use" then most registrars would simply attach (as many do) a couple of MX records to every registered name (in addition to the obligatory SOA and NS records.) Certainly "use" can not mean "website" because there are many uses of a name distinct from supporting the world-wide-web, which is merely one application out of many that are on the internet. And in this era of security concerns is one obligated to have a DNS server for the zone that is willing to accept DNS query packets from any and all sources? I've got a registered name that I prefer that only certain people even know about - behind it is a zone filled with names with resource records designed to stress DNS software - in fact I have yet to see a DNS resolver that can handle all of the cases. This zone is present to support software testing. Anyone expecting to interact with those names will be sorely disappointed (especially as there is a lot of buggy DNS client software out there.) Does that constitute "use"? In many other areas - such as the acquisition of land or a painting, even a painting beyond copyright, there is no obligation of use of the land or to display the art. In fact one of the touchstones of "ownership" is the power to say "no" (or, as art museums do, impose terms of use on visits to the museum that forbid the making of copies, even copies of paintings that have long since fallen into the public domain.) Sure, I'd like to say 'I'm a refugee' or 'I'm a entrepreneur' and have that open the gates to the US National Gallery so that I can take home my favorite Berthe Morisot painting That may sound absurd, but it is what I hear when I hear advocacy of some sort of hierarchy of privilege with regard to domain names. --karl-- On 6/30/19 4:36 PM, JOHN MORE wrote:

Karl

Your attack on the trademark analogy is off base. For trademarks to be registered you have to show use. That is not true of domain name speculators. Even for common law trademark, you have to show a first use.

John More ISOC-DC

...

On Jun 28, 2019, at 8:03 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:

...

On 6/28/19 2:36 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Here's another, anecdotal datapoint: I have been involved in the Internet for nearly as long. But it's been helping family, friends, small businesses, colleges, religious institutions, and refugees in camps. I've worked with entrepreneurs both new and established, struggling to make a presence on the Internet and finding that their first 20 choices were only available at an aftermarket premium. The result is that they either had to: * change their brand name to suit the available names (this has happened more than once) * agonize over whether to settle for a domain name using hyphens * pay a lesser premium in a new TLD they don't know is fully reachable * resign themselves to having a non-memorable (ie, shitty) domain and using other strategies to lead people to them. I agree that it is sad that we don't live in a world of pink ponies, unicorns, perfect equity, and no competition for resources.

Your people want "brand names" - which I read as a synonym for "trademark" - and find that someone else has already registered it?

That's pretty normal life in the land of trade names. Somebody got there first. Somebody else go there too late. That is not speculation, that is not abuse.

Athol Fugard wrote that "the saddest words ... are 'too late'."

Or are you arguing that there is some sort of elevated goodness attribute that should allow "family, friends, small businesses, colleges, religious institutions, and refugees" to preempt prior uses? And who shall be the judge that weighs applicants to measure who is the more worthy?

(Given that my wife and I make large contributions of our time, labor, and money to non-profit and charitable organizations, we might find that kind of preemptive power useful. But I doubt that such a thing would always be perceived as fair or just by the prior users.)

(And I do wonder about the inclusion of "small business" and "entrepreneurs" in that list - I'd love to have my small businesses to have a power of preemption. And in the several start-ups that I've done I would have welcomed the ability to take a domain name away from another prior user.)

Are you focusing on the notion of "use"? If so, what is "use" of a domain name? Must it resolve - for any query from any source - to an IP address, or a TXT record or something? If that requirement were put into place you can bet that every registrar will quickly deploy a "sufficient to pass muster" resolver service for its customers to use.

(Since you mentioned entrepreneurs - A common practice in start ups is to register a portfolio of domain names as candidates for products or corporate names, to hold them in private for several years, and then to sell off the ones that were not selected to be put into play. Does that constitute a "use" or an "abuse"?)

Regarding hyphenated or even non-semantic names - Anyone these days who depends on humans making semantic sense out of a domain name is living in days of fading glory. Search engines, especially when embedded in browser address bars, have long ago started to diminish the use of domain names as carriers of semantic content. And the rise of application handles such as facebook or twitter names has diminished that further.

--karl--

lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en _______________________________________________ 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, 1 Jul 2019 at 13:18, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:

unfortunately all we have for this interaction is a mailing list. You'll lose a lot of people moving it to a discord server.

+1 Consider that there will be resistance from asking everyone to create One More Account on a new platform to keep track of. FWIW, an increasing number of email clients are capable of doing smart threading to make reading easier.

On June 28, 2019 at 11:48 morej1@mac.com (John More) wrote:

+1

Domain name speculation is very destructive since it requires potential users who have real businesses or needs to jump through hoops and often be blocked from a reasonable domain name.

We (i.e., ICANN) have enabled registries to do this ("premium domains") with nTLDs. The counter-argument is that the usual situation is just a fair market price for the domain. How else do you decide who gets it? I was jarred once, mildly, when a sunrise registration went from about $150 (maybe less) to $20,000 because I was about 10 minutes late, sunrise had expired. I passed, it was of little value to me beyond that $150. But that's hardly a "fair market price". Four years later it's still listed by the registry as a "platinum domain" (i.e., unsold.) The fish rots from the head. -- -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*

I agree with Judith. I don’t think the article is worth replying to, irrespective of whether the issues could use discussion, it if full of conspiracy theories and misinformation. The Internet world is too often distracted by this sort of ranting. And I have no personal skin in this game. I have never received a cent from ISOC, ICANN, or the DC Chapter. John More

On Jun 26, 2019, at 12:13 AM, Jahangir Hossain <jrjahangir@gmail.com> wrote:

I think this article raised important issues specially 'removing the price cap". But i also support ALAC concludes statement in this regard “So, we are essentially grappling with competing considerations and uncertainties. After balancing the same, we do not find support for a particular position regarding the removal of price caps." .

Best Regards, Jahangir Hossain Vice Chair, Board of Trustee Internet Society Bangladesh http://internetsociety.org.bd <http://internetsociety.org.bd/> https://bd.linkedin.com/in/jrjahangir <https://bd.linkedin.com/in/jrjahangir>

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 11:40 PM Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>> wrote: Interesting read. At least some folks seem to be paying attention to what is done.

Carlton ‐--------------------------

https://reviewsignal.com/blog/2019/06/24/the-case-for-regulatory-capture-at-... <https://reviewsignal.com/blog/2019/06/24/the-case-for-regulatory-capture-at-icann/>_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large>

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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

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.

About fake news, there was a very interesting session at EuroDIG last week that was about “How to spread fake news”. The point was that, in order to fight a phenomenon, you must first understand it and moreover understand how it spreads. So, besides what Olivier quotes, that is taking a sentence out of context, there is also the technique to argue against a position that in reality the victim has never stated. Replying saying “I never said that” will only bring a wave of “Oh, they don’t even have the guts to stand behind their ideas” and a flood of “Like” to the attacker. We live in interesting times. R On 26.06.2019, at 10:14, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear Jahangir, you raise a very valid point. The very method by which fake information is spread, is to quote something out of context, whilst wilfully omitting other information. Sadly, this is a classic example of such process. We can be accused of getting it wrong every time: 1. provide more information about the various reasonings in our community and we're accused of producing a confusing statement 2. provide a shorter, to the point statement and we're accused of not reflecting the community and being captured by a select few who put this together. Often, we as a community are accused of both. The only way to win this, is to continue doing what we are doing to the best of our ability. If our Statements had no impact, they would not give rise to the criticisms and mis-characterized attacks that the At-Large community is subjected to. Kindest regards, Olivier On 26/06/2019 05:13, Jahangir Hossain wrote: I think this article raised important issues specially 'removing the price cap". But i also support ALAC concludes statement in this regard “So, we are essentially grappling with competing considerations and uncertainties. After balancing the same, we do not find support for a particular position regarding the removal of price caps." . Best Regards, Jahangir Hossain Vice Chair, Board of Trustee Internet Society Bangladesh http://internetsociety.org.bd<http://internetsociety.org.bd/> https://bd.linkedin.com/in/jrjahangir On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 11:40 PM Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>> wrote: Interesting read. At least some folks seem to be paying attention to what is done. Carlton ‐-------------------------- https://reviewsignal.com/blog/2019/06/24/the-case-for-regulatory-capture-at-... _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large 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@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large 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@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large 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.