[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: Comment on Latest NC draft - decentralization of DNSO functions

[Milton Mueller]

From: "vint cerf" <vinton.g.cerf at wcom.com>
> Jamie please look at the side-effects even the modest expansion 
> that has occurred - numerous lawsuits surrounding sunrise, landrush, 
> trademarks, etc - there are many operational and policy 
> (and apparently regulatory) issues surrounding the

It is obvious to anyone with experience in regulatory 
economics that modest expansion of the top-level domain 
names has been legally controversial is PRECISELY BECAUSE 
of the artificial scarcity ICANN has imposed on the name
space.

If ICANN announced that it was going to accept applications
for a "safe" number of TLDs each year, such as 40 or 50,
and that it would confine itself to:

a) setting OBJECTIVE minimum technical, financial and escrow 
requirements that would be applied to all regisrtries

b) defining objective and neutral procedures, such as
auctions, for resolving competing claims to TLDs 

The process would be much smoother and ICANN could 
truly be considered a coordinator. Any idiot could have,
and indeed did redict that "Sunrise" would cause interminable
problems, because you cannot MECHANIZE trademark 
protection without doing violence both to DNS as a 
protocol and to basic concepts of trademark rights.

It is because ICANN attempts to use its position as 
gatekeeper to entry into a market for regulatory purposes
that it continually gets into legal and political hot water.
And artificial scarcity simply makes the domains that do
exist more valuable and hence more contentious. 

ICANN needs to pull back from its overextended regulatory
role, otherwise it will continue to be mired in counterproductive
politics.