Joy, Nicolas,<div><br></div><div>...very necessary policy work, I would say... I will hopefully have some minor contributions to make in the future but will first refer you to Lori Schulman, the new interim NPOC EC Policy Committee Chair, as she may wish to engage with you and NCSG on this. Remember that we are a new constituency and as such have not yet completed a number of consultations with our currently NCSG-approved membership on policy issues and future members awaiting admission... Our priority is to deal first with our constituency issues.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Alain<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Nicolas Adam <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nickolas.adam@gmail.com" target="_blank">nickolas.adam@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
First principle I would like to submit goes to the nature of the
resources that we deal with here, domain names. <br>
<br>
To address what is the nature of those resources, for us, is to
fundamentally segregate the analogies that are and aren't "on
point", when it comes to policy proposals.<br>
<br>
I suggest we address this nature on a few ontological axis. I will
start with the economic axis.<br>
<br>
############<br>
<br>
I submit that we should fundamentally recognise that domain names
are *public goods* because they are both non-rivalrous and
non-excludable. Especially in the context of exploding gTLDs, this
has never been truer. Might even be amongst the purest examples of
such. <br>
<br>
As i've said in a previous post, with limitless alphanumeric strings
available, even if one market participant in a sector (i.e. healthy
food, or religion) obtains the obvious gTLD (.religion or
.healthyfood), there is many other ways to refer to those ideas for
their competitors (.faith or .healthybody, etc...) and so they are
truly non-rivalrous. <br>
<br>
[note that that is less so in the context of just a few TLDs (hence
my liking of the expansion). I would perhaps debate that they
already are under existing TLDs, or that the difference from the
purest form is a matter of degree and not nature]<br>
<br>
So, this *public good* nature of domain names would be its
fundamental economic *nature*. That is *what* they are,
economically. <br>
<br>
We can debate this. Anticipated policy implications are welcome. <br>
<br>
If we all agree, we can start writing a "Whereas .... domain names
are public goods", but we should really work on completing a list
first, and then go on the "Whereas ..."<br>
<br>
######<br>
<br>
Just to give examples of where this would lead, as a general scheme:
<br>
<br>
amongst the other ontological axis that I envision we should address
and craft a fundamental something on, the [technical] nature of
names (addresses), the [expressive] nature of names (free speech?)
come to mind.<br>
<br>
We might also want to address the *nature* of the DNS-root zone
(common good ?), the *nature* of users (and their centrality), and
some other relevant entities fundamental nature in this little
thought exercise.<br>
<br>
But for now i'd like to hear what y'all think of this scheme in
general, and of this principle in particular.<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
On 12/1/2011 4:46 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear all - reflecting on my first few
months as a GNSO councillor and the various NCUC and NCSG
conversations it occurred, imho, that there seems to be a
reasonably frequent resort to *<b>fundamental</b>*
principles-type discussions from various voices in the policy
discussions (domain name take downs, UDRP review, law
enforcement, IPR to name a few)
. Meanwhile I was taking a
fresh look at RFC 1591 and participating in a policy
principles discussion on TLD policy in New Zealand that was
kind of interesting and got me to thinking: <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">as a new NCSG member, what do I know about
the policy principles that guide the NCSG (not the principles
in our various Charters, but policy principles that inform our
SG policy inputs as a whole into ICANN related activities)?
What are the perspectives on these and what do members think?
Are there some core policy principles that we are agreed
about? If so, how these could be drawn on to help guide our
policy inputs in ICANN related matters (particularly as
Councillors responsible for considering issues in light of
diverse NCSG views)?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am may be mad for thinking about this
(and I feel very gratified to be in a SG that will clearly
tell me if this is so!) but I would like to initiate a
dialogue about this in NCSG even if it takes some time to
work through. I am willing to take responsibility for
facilitating this discussion and to, get the ball rolling,
wonder if a list of policy principles for NCSG might, for
example, look like this: <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">NCSG
prioritises the non-commercial, public interest aspects of
domain name policy.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Guardianship:
gTLD policy should be focused on responsibilities and
service to the community.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Multi-stakeholder:
gTLD policy should be determined by open multi-stakeholder
processes.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Human
rights: gTLD policy should meet human rights standards,
including transparency and the rule of law.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Equity:
parties to domain registrations (including non-commercial
registrants) should be on a level playing field; domain
registrations should be first come first served.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Competition
and choice: gTLD policy should ensure competition and choice
for non-commercial registrants and non-commercial internet
users. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">In
case of conflict, the principle of guardianship prevails.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If necessary, we can split discussion of
each of these policy principles into separate discussions on
the list, but perhaps we can start here
.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Joy<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Joy
Liddicoat<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Project
Coordinator<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Internet
Rights are Human Rights<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a href="http://www.apc.org" target="_blank">www.apc.org</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Tel:
<a href="tel:%2B64%2021%20263%202753" value="+64212632753" target="_blank">+64 21 263 2753</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Skype
id: joy.liddicoat<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Yahoo
id: <a href="mailto:strategic@xtra.co.nz" target="_blank">strategic@xtra.co.nz</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA<div>Member, Board of Directors, CECI, <a href="http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/" target="_blank">http://www.ceci.ca</a><br>
<div>Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, <a href="http://www.schulich.yorku.ca" target="_blank">www.schulich.yorku.ca</a></div><div>NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, <font color="#0a246a" face="'Times New Roman', Times, serif"><a href="http://www.chasquinet.org" target="_blank">www.chasquinet.org</a></font><br>
interim Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, <a href="http://npoc.org/" target="_blank">http://npoc.org/</a><br>O:<a href="tel:%2B1%20514%20484%207824" value="+15144847824" target="_blank">+1 514 484 7824</a>; M:<a href="tel:%2B1%20514%20704%207824" value="+15147047824" target="_blank">+1 514 704 7824</a><br>
Skype: alain.berranger<br></div></div><br>
</div>