Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
It is interesting to note Antony's chronology, and the observation that as ALAC has grown more democratic and less appointed, it has cooled to the gTLD hysteria about gTLDs shared by ICANN's more-vested interests.<
Another factor I suspect is that a number of members of the ALAC who had their own self-interest in new gTLDs have moved on, or the financial interests are no longer there. I can't think of a single end-user I have encountered over the last decade who has given a damn about access to new top-level domains. Rather, they want to know which existing domains are "safer" than others. I have talked to some "content" providers, for lack of a better term, who are interested in .health, and I can clearly see their reasons, as well as .gay and .trust (signed domain/DNSSEC for banking). -----Original Message-----
From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Sent: Mar 31, 2011 3:51 PM To: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@me.com> Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
On 31 March 2011 13:52, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@me.com> wrote:
You don't see this as a major problem for deferred applicants, whereas I think it would be very harmful to some applicants (and their prospective users).
Whether I see this (deferral) as a major problem for applicants is fairly irrelevant. This is At-Large, after all, which exists to protect the interests of end-users of the Internet who, by and large, are not even registrants. They're not even part of the ICANN food chain.
I care more about harm to end users than I care about harm to applicants. And end user concerns are VERY, VERY different.
So basing any argument here about
You have not demonstrated (sufficiently to me, at least) that end users are harmed by delay. Not registrants, end users.
Is there ANY instance that one could name in which the public has been deprived of original Internet content because of limitations of the existing namespace?
It is interesting to note Antony's chronology, and the observation that as ALAC has grown more democratic and less appointed, it has cooled to the gTLD hysteria about gTLDs shared by ICANN's more-vested interests. Correlation does not necessarily infer causality, but I do think there's a definite connection here. The more At-Large reflects the Internet end user, and the more that the end user community knows about ICANN, the less it cares about the panic rush for more TLDs.
The only exception to this is the IDN fast track for ccTLDs, which did have end-user demand (and my full support).
- Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
I'm not sure I understand this -- is the will of the end-user decided by ad-hoc polling? If so, my own anecdotal evidence is quite different, and opposite. I'm very confident about my polling, and I'm putting my money on the line to back it up. What about the the 600K registrants in .CO? Are they all either profiteers or deluded by smoke and mirrors? If not private polling, how exactly are the desires of the end-user determined? Antony On Mar 31, 2011, at 5:51 PM, Beau Brendler wrote:
It is interesting to note Antony's chronology, and the observation that as ALAC has grown more democratic and less appointed, it has cooled to the gTLD hysteria about gTLDs shared by ICANN's more-vested interests.<
Another factor I suspect is that a number of members of the ALAC who had their own self-interest in new gTLDs have moved on, or the financial interests are no longer there.
I can't think of a single end-user I have encountered over the last decade who has given a damn about access to new top-level domains. Rather, they want to know which existing domains are "safer" than others. I have talked to some "content" providers, for lack of a better term, who are interested in .health, and I can clearly see their reasons, as well as .gay and .trust (signed domain/DNSSEC for banking).
-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Sent: Mar 31, 2011 3:51 PM To: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@me.com> Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
On 31 March 2011 13:52, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@me.com> wrote:
You don't see this as a major problem for deferred applicants, whereas I think it would be very harmful to some applicants (and their prospective users).
Whether I see this (deferral) as a major problem for applicants is fairly irrelevant. This is At-Large, after all, which exists to protect the interests of end-users of the Internet who, by and large, are not even registrants. They're not even part of the ICANN food chain.
I care more about harm to end users than I care about harm to applicants. And end user concerns are VERY, VERY different.
So basing any argument here about
You have not demonstrated (sufficiently to me, at least) that end users are harmed by delay. Not registrants, end users.
Is there ANY instance that one could name in which the public has been deprived of original Internet content because of limitations of the existing namespace?
It is interesting to note Antony's chronology, and the observation that as ALAC has grown more democratic and less appointed, it has cooled to the gTLD hysteria about gTLDs shared by ICANN's more-vested interests. Correlation does not necessarily infer causality, but I do think there's a definite connection here. The more At-Large reflects the Internet end user, and the more that the end user community knows about ICANN, the less it cares about the panic rush for more TLDs.
The only exception to this is the IDN fast track for ccTLDs, which did have end-user demand (and my full support).
- Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
On 31 March 2011 18:46, Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc> wrote:
What about the the 600K registrants in .CO? Are they all either profiteers or deluded by smoke and mirrors?
Perhaps. Let me know if you see any new content under .co that couldn't exist under a different TLD. Don't forget defensive registrations along with the speculative and delusional. And is that really 600K registrants, or 600K registrations by 14 people? It would indeed be interesting to know how many .cos are actually used for original content -- as opposed to immediately handed to Sedo or hosting PPC park pages (I've just gone to a dozen or so randomly-selected "generic-word.co" sites, and all are park pages -- in fact cars.co is a park page hosted by Sedo!) So much for claims of lowering the prices... And finally, one can indeed speak partly to the delusion aspect. How much .co marketing tells potential registrants that their domain is ultimately under the control of -- and has traditionally been associated with -- a specific nationality? The word "Colombia" appears nowhere on the home page of http://www.cointernet.co/ The "who we are" page exclaims "Powered by Colombia" but nowhere explains quite what that means, except to mention that a partner in the venture is a Columbian company. Nowhere (that I could easily find on the .co website) is the link between ".co" and the country of Columbia made clear -- yet it's right at the top of the WIkipedia entry, so it's important to the entry's authors. So...is the marketing closer to deception or full disclosure? Make up your own mind. (Of course, Verisign is no better with .tv, but the folks who run .nu are more up-front) - Evan
What about the the 600K registrants in .CO? Are they all either profiteers or deluded by smoke and mirrors?
Wow, it just gets better. We all know that .CO is full of defensive registrations and typosquats. If I could get .cmo or .c0m, I bet I could get 600K registrations, too. After all, it's less than 1% of the registrations in .COM. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader why anyone would pretend that all wasn't obvious. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
John, I don't think there's any data showing a high degree of defensive registration in CO - which now has >900K domains The registry has been extremely vigilant about limiting that, and the $20 price point has made it expensive to squat (if the PPC value of the traffic the squatter gets is less than $20 per year it's a money losing proposition for them - and very few new domains have >$20 in PPC value per year). The data I've seen, and it's not a complete analysis of the zone, shows about the same level of squatting in CO as you see in BIZ and INFO - which is minimal Richard On Mar 31, 2011, at 7:19 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
What about the the 600K registrants in .CO? Are they all either profiteers or deluded by smoke and mirrors?
Wow, it just gets better. We all know that .CO is full of defensive registrations and typosquats. If I could get .cmo or .c0m, I bet I could get 600K registrations, too. After all, it's less than 1% of the registrations in .COM.
I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader why anyone would pretend that all wasn't obvious.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
I don't think there's any data showing a high degree of defensive registration in CO - which now has >900K domains
Do they provide access to the zone file like GTLDs and .US do? If not, we're all just guessing. R's, John
Richard, Agree that the NeuStar / .CO business plan will not cause the IPC exceptional nosebleeds and hysterics, but that isn't the only metric for lack of proof of a utility and necessity claim. Any data on the ppc density among the 900k? Given the renewal price point for the secondary market actors acting as pseudo-registrars, on the order 1.5 times the .CO price point for GA names (post landrush(es)) for .COM names with natural traffic, is there any reason to believe that the ad inventories placed in the o(1M) already "tasted" .CO properties aren't as sustaining as the ad inventories placed in the same ppc proven .COM properties? It should be clear that finding a "public interest" rational for an increase in the number of sites having no utility other than the function of ad inventory outlets will require some cleverness. Eric On 4/1/11 3:52 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:
John,
I don't think there's any data showing a high degree of defensive registration in CO - which now has>900K domains
The registry has been extremely vigilant about limiting that, and the $20 price point has made it expensive to squat (if the PPC value of the traffic the squatter gets is less than $20 per year it's a money losing proposition for them - and very few new domains have>$20 in PPC value per year).
The data I've seen, and it's not a complete analysis of the zone, shows about the same level of squatting in CO as you see in BIZ and INFO - which is minimal
Richard
On Mar 31, 2011, at 7:19 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
What about the the 600K registrants in .CO? Are they all either profiteers or deluded by smoke and mirrors?
Wow, it just gets better. We all know that .CO is full of defensive registrations and typosquats. If I could get .cmo or .c0m, I bet I could get 600K registrations, too. After all, it's less than 1% of the registrations in .COM.
I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader why anyone would pretend that all wasn't obvious.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
I gave asked Lori Anne Wardi for these and similar stats from .co. At one point she gave these to me in a conversation but I have been hesitant to post them lest I misremember them and confuse the issue. I will forward these to the list when/if she replies. Antony Sent from my iPhone On Apr 1, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:
Richard,
Agree that the NeuStar / .CO business plan will not cause the IPC exceptional nosebleeds and hysterics, but that isn't the only metric for lack of proof of a utility and necessity claim.
Any data on the ppc density among the 900k?
Given the renewal price point for the secondary market actors acting as pseudo-registrars, on the order 1.5 times the .CO price point for GA names (post landrush(es)) for .COM names with natural traffic, is there any reason to believe that the ad inventories placed in the o(1M) already "tasted" .CO properties aren't as sustaining as the ad inventories placed in the same ppc proven .COM properties?
It should be clear that finding a "public interest" rational for an increase in the number of sites having no utility other than the function of ad inventory outlets will require some cleverness.
Eric
On 4/1/11 3:52 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:
John,
I don't think there's any data showing a high degree of defensive registration in CO - which now has>900K domains
The registry has been extremely vigilant about limiting that, and the $20 price point has made it expensive to squat (if the PPC value of the traffic the squatter gets is less than $20 per year it's a money losing proposition for them - and very few new domains have>$20 in PPC value per year).
The data I've seen, and it's not a complete analysis of the zone, shows about the same level of squatting in CO as you see in BIZ and INFO - which is minimal
Richard
On Mar 31, 2011, at 7:19 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
What about the the 600K registrants in .CO? Are they all either profiteers or deluded by smoke and mirrors?
Wow, it just gets better. We all know that .CO is full of defensive registrations and typosquats. If I could get .cmo or .c0m, I bet I could get 600K registrations, too. After all, it's less than 1% of the registrations in .COM.
I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader why anyone would pretend that all wasn't obvious.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
participants (6)
-
Antony Van Couvering -
Beau Brendler -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Evan Leibovitch -
John R. Levine -
Richard Tindal