[Advisors] [NA-Discuss] The TLD-less NYC
Evan Leibovitch
evan at telly.org
Fri, 2 Dec 2011 13:45:29 -0500
--f46d040fa1c682228304b3205f90
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hi Mike,
On 2 December 2011 00:01, michael gurstein <gurstein@gmail.com> wrote:
**
> As it happens, right now I'm sitting in a session at the e-Asia conference
> in Dhaka, Bangladesh listening to a Prof. from Singapore explaining how the
> prosperity of Singapore is in significant part built on their integrated
> digital platform, having just finished a discussion with someone from .ORG
> (PIR) explaining how their application for the .NGO domain will provide a
> digital platform globally for providing support for the NGO community
> globally.
>
> There seems somehow to be a disconnect between what you are saying below
> and what these colleagues have been telling me (and others) at considerable
> length.
>
Well, there is one significant difference.
The people you are talking to in PIR have a vested interest in making .ORG
work.
They speak of promises based on what they hope will happen.
I have zero interest in this -- my day job is in ebook research and
Internet governance is but a passionate sideline. I make special effort to
go outside the world of ICANN insiders to separate "what is" as opposed to
"what the industry would like it to be".
I speak of failures that have already happened.
.travel
.aero
.pro
.biz
.museum
The .cat example -- a perfect example of how a TLD should benefit a
diverse, threatened cultural community -- is only a "success" after
multiple downgrading of expectations. But that one is doing moderately
well, that aim of a TLD indeed to me has merit, and I have high hopes and
encouragement for effiorts such as .cymru
But a city is not a language and it is not a cultural diaspora.
I believe the onus is on you to demonstrate how a new directory service for
NGOs -- which is, essentially, all a TLD is -- will provide mutual benefit
in a way that, say, .org does not. A TLD is not a platform, though it can
be a (non-essential, IMO) component of one. Comparing the .NGO "platform"
to Singapore's policy-based digital strategy seems ludicrous.
Do you see Oxfam -- or the UN, Red Cross or or others -- abandoning their
.org addresses to move to .NGO? I know some of these organizations' ICANN
representatives personally through their participation in the
INPOC<http://www.npoc.org/>.
They're just as concerned about name protection and end-user confusion as
commercial brand owners. Has anyone asked *them* -- the actual target users
-- if .NGO is needed? You might be surprised by the answers. Does that
count as relevant research?
What is broken that needs fixing?
That .org isn't policed while .NGO will be?
Who will pay for the policing?
I have no way of independently verifying any of the claims--yours,
> theirs, Tom Lowenhaupt's...
>
When I say that most previous attempts at TLD expansion have been utter
failures you can most certainly verify that independently by comparing
their applications to present-day circumstances. Go ahead. Have a look at
the history of ".pro" and ".travel" and shed a tear. Have a look at what
.cat promised versus what it delivered. Don't take my word for it.
OTOH, you can't peer-review hopes and dreams.
If anything, it will be harder for the new TLDs going forward because
they'll be more heavily regulated. The old applications didn't have to deal
with "continuity instruments" like the new ones do, for instance.
> But, the fellow talking about Singapore has just said that for them the
> most significant factors are at the "business layer" i.e. when you are
> dealing with what the enterprise does building on the technical etc..
> layers. When we talk about TLD's (i.e. business naming/branding) we are I
> think talking about the very core of the current business models incluidng
> dare I say for both the public sector and the not-for-profit sectors.
>
And it is telling that the would-be participants -- the brand owners, the
Internet vendors and content providers and media sites -- are most against
TLD expsnsion.
That's not opinion<http://domainincite.com/ana-chief-calls-for-new-gtlds-to-be-suspended/>
.
>
> So let me say that without opting for one position over another I'm
> skeptical of your skepticism
>
The onus is on those who want change to demonstrate that
a) the current system is broken
b) the proposed solution will be effective
I challenge the assertion that, with regard to NGOs and especially Canadian
ones, that new TLDs are anything more than a solution looking for a problem.
Look within ICANN's "community". The greatest proponents of new gTLDs are
those who want to control and sell them. The biggest concerns come from are
commercial domain users, NPOs, governments, and the public advisory body.
Does that split not suggest anything to you? That the bodies within ICANN
charged with serving the public interest are the most wary?
As Darlene said, this is not just about me.
> and I would be a whole lot more comfortable if folks such as yourself who
> in theory are "representing" folks such as myself in the context of an
> increasingly central agency of "governance" in the digital age i.e. ICANN
> were rather more exploratory and deliberative in their approach to these
> issues including dare I say exploring some possible
> social/political/cultural/economic impact scenarios as they might play out
> vis-a-vis these naming issues.
>
Welcome to ICANN. They want to ram this program down our throats, research
and study be damned, because I believe they know any research data would
not be on the side of the domain sellers. The vote in Singapore to approve
the program was rushed through (IMO) because the outgoing Board Chair
wanted a legacy and the vested interests who call the shots were too
impatient
In the meantime, you're welcome to be skeptical of my skepticism, but I
assert that the onus is on those who want change to identify the problems
and demonstrate how the proposed solutions (ie, a .NGO TLD) will solve it.
I've seen nothing yet that can't be shot down easily.
- Evan
--f46d040fa1c682228304b3205f90
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">Hi Mike,</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></d=
iv><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 2 December 2011 00:01, michael gurstein <s=
pan dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.co=
m</a>></span> wrote:</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m=
argin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><u></u>
<div>
<div><span><font color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial">As it=20
happens, right now I'm sitting in a session at the e-Asia conference in=
Dhaka,=20
Bangladesh listening to a Prof. from Singapore explaining how the prosperit=
y of=20
Singapore is in significant part built on their integrated digital platform=
,=20
having just finished a discussion with someone from .ORG (PIR) explaining h=
ow=20
their application for the .NGO domain will provide a digital platform globa=
lly=20
for providing support for the NGO community globally.</font></span></div>
<div><span><font color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"></font></span>=
=C2=A0</div>
<div><span><font color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial">There=20
seems somehow to be a disconnect between what you are saying below and what=
=20
these colleagues have been telling me (and others) at considerable length.=
=C2=A0</font></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, ther=
e is one significant difference.</div><div><br></div><div>The people you ar=
e talking to in PIR have a vested interest in making .ORG work.</div>
<div>They speak of promises based on what they hope will happen.</div><div>=
<br></div><div>I have zero interest in this -- my day job is in ebook resea=
rch and Internet governance is but a passionate sideline. I make special ef=
fort to go outside the world of ICANN insiders to separate "what is&qu=
ot; as opposed to "what the industry would like it to be".</div>
<div><br></div><div>I speak of failures that have already happened.</div><d=
iv>.travel</div><div>.aero</div><div>.pro</div><div>.biz</div><div>.museum<=
/div><div><br></div><div>The .cat example -- a perfect example of how a TLD=
should benefit a diverse, threatened cultural community -- is only a "=
;success" after multiple downgrading of expectations. But that one is =
doing moderately well, that aim of a TLD indeed to me has merit, and I have=
high hopes and encouragement for effiorts such as .cymru=C2=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>But a city is not a language and it is not a cultural d=
iaspora.</div><div><br></div><div>I believe the onus is on you to demonstra=
te how a new directory service for NGOs -- which is, essentially, all a TLD=
is -- will provide mutual benefit in a way that, say, .org does not. A TLD=
is not a platform, though it can be a (non-essential, IMO) component of on=
e. Comparing the .NGO "platform" to Singapore's policy-based =
digital strategy seems ludicrous.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Do you see Oxfam -- or the UN, Red Cross or or others -=
- abandoning their .org addresses to move to .NGO? I know some of these org=
anizations' ICANN representatives personally through their participatio=
n in the <a href=3D"http://www.npoc.org/">INPOC</a>. They're just as co=
ncerned about name protection and end-user confusion as commercial brand ow=
ners. Has anyone asked *them* -- the actual target users -- if .NGO is need=
ed? You might be surprised by the answers. Does that count as relevant rese=
arch?</div>
<div><br></div><div>What is broken that needs fixing?</div><div>That .org i=
sn't policed while .NGO will be?</div><div>Who will pay for the policin=
g?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty=
le=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div><span><font color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial">=20
</font></span></div>
<div><span><font color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"></font></span>=
=C2=A0<span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 255); font=
-family: Arial; ">I=20
have=C2=A0no way of independently verifying any of the claims--yours, their=
s,=20
Tom Lowenhaupt's...</span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>=
When I say that most previous attempts at TLD expansion have been utter fai=
lures you can most certainly verify that independently by comparing their a=
pplications to present-day circumstances. Go ahead. Have a look at the hist=
ory of ".pro" and ".travel" and shed a tear. Have a loo=
k at what .cat promised versus what it delivered. Don't take my word fo=
r it.</div>
<div><br></div><div>OTOH, you can't peer-review hopes and dreams.</div>=
<div><br></div><div>If anything, it will be harder for the new TLDs going f=
orward because they'll be more heavily regulated. The old applications =
didn't have to deal with "continuity instruments" like the ne=
w ones do, for instance.</div>
<div><br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div>
<div><span><font color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"></font></span>=
=C2=A0<span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 255); font=
-family: Arial; ">But,=20
the fellow talking about Singapore has just said that for them the most=20
significant factors are at the "business layer" i.e. when you are=
dealing with=20
what the enterprise does building on the technical etc.. layers.=C2=A0 When=
we=20
talk about TLD's (i.e. business naming/branding) we are I think talking=
about=20
the very core of the current business models incluidng dare I say for both =
the=20
public sector and the not-for-profit sectors.</span></div></div></blockquot=
e><div><br></div><div>And it is telling that the would-be participants -- t=
he brand owners, the Internet vendors and content providers and media sites=
-- are most against TLD expsnsion.</div>
<div><a href=3D"http://domainincite.com/ana-chief-calls-for-new-gtlds-to-be=
-suspended/">That's not opinion</a>.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid=
;padding-left:1ex;">
<div>
<div><span><font color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"></font></span>=
=C2=A0</div>
<div><span><font color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial">So let=20
me say that without opting for one position over another I'm skeptical =
of your=20
skepticism</font></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The on=
us is on those who want change to demonstrate that</div><div>a) the current=
system is broken</div><div>b) the proposed solution will be effective</div=
>
<div><br></div><div>I challenge the assertion that, with regard to NGOs and=
especially Canadian ones, that new TLDs are anything more than a solution =
looking for a problem.</div><div><br></div><div>Look within ICANN's &qu=
ot;community". The greatest proponents of new gTLDs are those who want=
to control and sell them. The biggest concerns come from are commercial do=
main users, NPOs, governments, and the public advisory body. Does that spli=
t not suggest anything to you? That the bodies within ICANN =C2=A0charged w=
ith serving the public interest are the most wary?</div>
<div><br></div><div>As Darlene said, this is not just about me.</div><div>=
=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div><div><span><font color=3D"=
#0000ff" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"> and I would be a whole lot more comfort=
able if folks such as yourself=20
who in theory are "representing" folks such as myself in the cont=
ext of an=20
increasingly central agency of "governance" in the digital age i.=
e. ICANN were=20
rather more exploratory and deliberative in their approach to these issues=
=20
including dare I say exploring some possible social/political/cultural/econ=
omic=20
impact scenarios as they might play out vis-a-vis these naming=20
issues.</font></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div=
><div>Welcome to ICANN. They want to ram this program down our throats, res=
earch and study be damned, because I believe they know any research data wo=
uld not be on the side of the domain sellers. The vote in Singapore to appr=
ove the program was rushed through (IMO) because the outgoing Board Chair w=
anted a legacy and the vested interests who call the shots were too impatie=
nt</div>
<div><br></div><div>In the meantime, you're welcome to be skeptical of =
my skepticism, but I assert that the onus is on those who want change to id=
entify the problems and demonstrate how the proposed solutions (ie, a .NGO =
TLD) will solve it. I've seen nothing yet that can't be shot down e=
asily.</div>
<div><br></div><div>- Evan</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div>
--f46d040fa1c682228304b3205f90--