[LINK] Esther Dyson on TLD Proliferation
Roger Clarke
Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au
Wed Dec 14 09:11:54 AEDT 2011
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Esther Dyson <edyson at edventure.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [IP] ICANN Whatís the .rush? - The Washington Post
To: David Farber <dave at farber.net>
Cc: ip <ip at listbox.com>
Dave -
Thanks so much for reposting this. I know everyone is concerned (and
justly) about SOPA right now, but ICANN is unaccountable to anyone except
its own coterie of registries, registrars, trademark lawyers. In theory,
it's accountable to the public, but the public pays no attention.... So,
everyone, please pay attention! In 5 years, people will use Google et al.
instead of URLs anyway, but in the meantime a TLD 1 percent is going to get
rich by confusing and "protecting" the 99 percent.
here is my own written testimony for the Senate Commerce Committee hearing
last week:
Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchinson, esteemed
Senators, Committee staff and others, for your attention to this important
issue. As a private citizen with a variety of affiliations but beholden to
no single employer or institution, I am honored to be here today. ****
** **
My name is Esther Dyson. I was the founding chairman of ICANN's board,
from its inception in September 1998 until late in 2000. I continued as a
member of the ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee for a year or two after
that, and subsequently went on with the rest of my life. I am a casual
user of domain names; I have a couple registered that I don't use, and then
I have owned and used edventure.com since before my ICANN tenure. As an
investor, a board member of non-profit and for-profit companies and as a
user of the Internet, I do have a substantial interest in freedom of speech
and freedom to innovate. ****
** **
Other than that, I have no particular business interests in the domain name
system, and I paid my own way here today. Moreover, unlike most of the
public, I have the private resources, the time and the insider knowledge to
come here to give you what I hope you will find to be an informed and
useful perspective.****
** **
I come as a loving critic to improve ICANN, not to bury it. ****
** **
*Some brief history*
** **
When I joined the board of ICANN back in 1998, the majority of its members
had almost no experience with the Internet and attempted to serve the
interests of a broad public. At the time, our primary mission was to
break the monopoly of Network Solutions (which managed .com among other
registries), first by separating the functions of registry (which manages
the list of names in a particular top-level domain) and registrar (which
resells second-level domain names to the public). ****
** **
We succeeded in that, and we also managed to launch a few new TLDs,
including .biz, .info, .museum and .coop. Of those, only .biz and .info
have had much success. Separately, a number of creative people ñ whose
initiative I sincerely applaud ñ made special-purpose TLDs out of country
codes (ccTLDs) such as .tv (Tuvalu), .md (Moldova), .ly (Libya) and most
recently .co (Colombia). ****
** **
At the same time, it's fair to say that .com retained its first-mover
advantage as by far the leading TLD. Users instinctively type
COMPANYNAME.com into their browsers.****
** **
I myself was a big fan of the concept of new TLDs. I believed that it
would broaden the market, encourage innovation (as with the repurposed
ccTLDs I mentioned above)...and besides, why should ICANN enforce
artificial scarcity?****
** **
But I have since changed my mind. Now I would like to explain why, and
finally to suggest some paths forward. ****
** **
*Why I changed my mind ñ Confusing to the public*
** **
After my two-year term as chairman of ICANN expired in 2000, I joined the
At-Large Advisory Committee. Our mission was to make sure the voice of the
ultimate users ñ not just the sellers, resellers and buyers of domain names
ñ was heard. That turned out to be an almost impossible task. Naturally
enough, normal members of the public did not have the time or interest (or
funds) to involve themselves in ICANN's business. Despite numerous
attempts, we failed to atttract more than a few thousand people at best to
our various meetings, online conversations, requests for comment and the
like. Our online message board was mostly painful to read. When I finally
resigned from the ALAC, I too found ICANN too removed from my daily
interests to pay much attention to its activities. ****
** **
*Why I changed my mind ñ Lack of oversight*
** **
Our premise for new TLDs was that we would select registry managers who
would add value to their TLDs and monitor the behavior of their
registrars, who would in turn make sure that the registrants followed
whatever requirements the registries imposed. In fact, the business
overall has become one of sleazy marketing practices, front-running (where
registrars or related parties buy names for their own accounts, competing
unfairly with their customers) and a high proportion of spammy
domains. Unfortunately,
the ease and lack of accountability with which someone can buy a domain
name has led to a profusion of spam, phishing and other nefarious
sites. There's
no reason to think the situation would be any better with the next set of
new TLDs; there would simply be more of them. ****
** **
And as the case of .xxx shows, many of the second-level domain-name
purchasers who do have honest intentions will probably be more interested
in defensive registrations rather than adding value to the system. (One
such case is that of Meetup.com, out of whose office I work and on whose
board I sit. Meetup has attempted to register Meetup.xxx, but has been told
the name has been reserved on the "premium queue" to be auctioned off to
the highest bidder. Even more perversely, Meetup cannot even bid at
auction for its own trademarked name unless it somehow becomes registered
as a member of the "adult community," which is at odds with the very nature
of its business and the very reason it sought to reserve the name.
Meetup's only remedy ultimately will be to file an expensive and
time-consuming trademark lawsuit.)****
** **
*Why I changed my mind ñ Misallocation of resources*
** **
Our initial assumption was that new TLDs would be relatively cheap. But
ICANN's current plan envisions an expensive application process and
expensive registrations. ****
** **
The amount of money likely to be spent on these new TLDs - both by new
applicants and registrants, and by incumbents protecting their names - is
huge, at a time when businesses and consumers are just scraping by. I
believe in innovation, but only if it adds value. In this case, most of the
new domains would simply add friction. ****
** **
As with .xxx, where many of the registrants are actually companies who want
to make sure their name is *not *used in .xxx, I predict that many or most
of the new registrations will be defensive. Marriott.com, for example,
works fine; why do they need marriott.hotels except defensively? (Or why
do they need to own .marriott?) ****
** **
The rationale is that there's a shortage of domain names... but actually,
there's a shortage of space in people's heads. When you add, for example,
.hotel, you are not creating new space; you are carving up the ´hotelª
space in people's heads into .com and .hotel. So was that Marriott.com or
Marriott.hotel? or dyson.com or dyson.hotel? if I decide to rent out my
apartment. Consumers will inevitably be confused, and the primary
beneficiaries will be Google, trademark lawyers...and of course the
registries and registrars. ****
** **
In short, it's as if you owned a field, and you paid a border guard. Now
the border guards want you to pay separately for each little chunk in your
field; it's still the same field, but now it's carved into ever-smaller
pieces. To use my own small field as an example, the field was originally
called edventure.com. Now the new chunks could be labeled edventure.angel,
edventure.blog, edventure.nyc, edventure.post, edventure.fin .... and
perhaps I'll also be solicited to buy the TLD .edventure so that some
educational or editorial group won't get hold of it. ****
** **
In the end, new domain names are somewhat like derivatives: They add
complexity and transactions and lots of rights and obligations without
actually creating anything of value. ****
** **
*Context: Innovation can happen without new TLDs*
** **
I have heard from people who say that the new TLDs will lead to great
innovation. I once thought so too. I had visions of .fin as high-value,
highly secure TLD for regulated financial services, for example. Right
now, there are people who want to launch .eco and .green as the foundation
of a ´greenª marketing campaign that would purportedly do untold good for
the world at large. But what's wrong with edventure.com/green? ****
** **
Meanwhile, there is innovation in namespaces, but it comes with overall
innovation. One of the best and simplest examples I can think of is
twitter, where I am @edyson or http://twitter.com/#!/edyson - a fine use of
an *existing* TLD. ****
** **
*Remedies ....*
** **
Of course, my task here does not end with complaining. What should be done?
First of all, it is not the role of Congress to tell ICANN what to do.
ICANN is accountable to the worldwide public, not to the US Government
(except through one limited contract). But it *is* the role of Congress to
shed light on issues of public interest, and to suggest politely that ICANN
follow through more fully on its acknowledged obligation to solicit public
feedback. As I discovered during my time at ICANN, it's hard to get the
public interested in these matters. (In that respect too, domain names are
like derivatives.) ****
** **
As I mentioned, ICANN has indeed followed the process of soliciting public
opinion, but I do not believe they have obtained ´informed consent,ª in the
sense that people actually understand the issues. ****
** **
*Much broader consultation with the public*
** **
Therefore, although personally I would like to see ICANN simply abandon
this program, I have been told again and again that this is not
´realistic.ª If that is indeed the case, I would recommend that ICANN
rapidly re-launch its consultation process with much broader outreach. Perhaps
these hearings and the subsequent press coverage will help to inform the
broader public and shade ICANN's approach to new TLDs.****
** **
*Much stronger front-end protection*
** **
At the same time, ICANN could offer much broader and easier protection
(from similar-sounding TLDs) to existing registrants, akin to what ICANN
itself has and what the Red Cross is asking for. Of course, this would
obviate much of the interest in the new domain names, but it is a proper
obligation for ICANN to undertake, in my opinion. ****
** **
*Conclusion*
** **
The current domain name system in some ways is an accident of history. ICANN
was created to regulate it, independently of any government and on behalf
of the Internet ñ and world - community as a whole. Just as with fishing
rights, communications spectra, taxi medallions and other ´commons,ª there's
a delicate balance between too few and too many domain names, which this
new initiative may well upset if it goes forward without more serious study.
As the old saying goes: If it ain't broke, don't fix it! ****
** **
I would welcome any questions. ****
** **
** **
On Dec 12, 2011, at 9:46 AM, David Farber wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-rush/2011/12/09/gIQA5Ms9nO_story.html
ICANN reports to no one ó a decision made when the group was created during
the Clinton administration to protect Internet independence. The group has
made some adjustments in response to concerns, including creation of a
trademark clearinghouse and a ìrapid responseî process to allow legitimate
rights holders to quickly knock out imposters. Officials have said that
some nonprofits may be permitted to pay lower fees.
Although the plan has been six years in the making, it is not ready for
prime time. ICANN officials acknowledge that they are still working out
some details, including certain protections for trademark holders. The
Justice Department and other law enforcement agencies have expressed
concerns about enforcement.
ICANN should not approve new names until enforcement and protection issues
are resolved. Even then, it should approve at most a few, to allow the
marketplace to absorb and weigh the changes. ICANN would be wise to move
slowly; its legitimacy and Internet efficacy are at stake.
snip
-------------------------------------------
Esther Dyson
edyson at edventure.com
c/o Meetup HQ
632 Broadway, 10th floor
New York, NY 10012
USA
www.edventure.com
www.flickr.com/photos/edyson
@edyson
Always make new mistakes!
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
http://lists.vortex.com/mailman/listinfo/privacy
--
Roger Clarke http://www.rogerclarke.com/
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au http://www.xamax.com.au/
Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre Uni of NSW
Visiting Professor in Computer Science Australian National University
More information about the Link
mailing list