[ncdnhc-discuss] Internet is global=we need central planning

[James Love]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
> hint:  The question that was put forward was to ask how the "devolved"
> structure provides anything that is simpler, more efficient, or more
> fair.  That is not a matter of mission creep, James, it is a matter of
> design quality for an administrative mechanism.

      With regard to authorizing new TLDs, there is no compelling reason to
have this entry industry regulated by a single global body, and indeed few
precedents to suggest this single global regulator is a good idea.  There
are issues that require global coordination, and issues that do not.  ICANN
wants to do them all, and sell off the opportunity to be regulated, as its
main fundraising activity.

Here are a few sections from my ICANN Reform comments on this point:

http://www.cptech.org/ecom/icann/reform-comments.html

14)  The ICANN board needs to do something that does not
  come naturally.  It needs to give up power, and allow others
  to make more of the decisions.  Specifically, it should
  allow national governments or regional DNSO like bodies to
  authorize new TLDs, subject to coordination with ICANN on
  issues such as the uniqueness of TLD strings, the
  maintenance of minimum technical standards and those policy
  decisions which must be made at a global level, such as, for
  example, the UDRP or some issues relating to whois data.

15)  The government model for this might work as follows.
  If the European Commission wanted to authorize the ICFTU to
  create .union, or the World Health Organization to create
  .health, or if the US Department of Commerce wanted to
  authorize the creation of .movie, this could proceed, with
  minimal interference from ICANN.   Here I would suggest a
  simple model where countries would authorize the initial
  application, and ICANN would only review those aspects of
  the proposal that ICANN needed to review.

16)  A regional DNSO model would be similar.  The regional
  DNSO would do many of the same things that ICANN does now,
  but without the incentives to block entry by new TLDs.  Any
  regional DNSO that acted slowly, like ICANN does now, would
  simply sit by and watch other regions launch new TLDs.

17)  In the event that there was a controversy over the
  allocation of a particular string (such as .asia, .law,
  etc.), ICANN could resolve such disputes.  But there is
  little reason for ICANN to be engaged in the type of detail
  it now addresses in regulation of gTLDs.  Note that from
  1995 to 2000 more than 100 new ccTLDs were added to the root
  without harm to the Internet, and without ICANN style
  regulation.  To the degree that there are issues concerning
  use of dictionary names, ICANN could ration or limit the
  number of dictionary names any one country or region could
  use, in relevant languages.  ICANN could also address
  complaints about confusingly similar TLD strings.  The
  advantage of decentralization of other decisions is that
  different decision making bodies will innovate or protect
  different values.  Europe might provide for stronger
  protections for privacy of personal information, or more
  detailed consumer protection rules.  The US might do more
  (or less) in terms of addressing pricing issues.  Some
  cultures might have different views of the uses of certain
  SLDs.  In fact, one observes differences on these issues in
  the current ccTLD market.  Diversity of regulatory regimes
  on issues that do not require common global approaches is a
  good thing, not something to eliminate.




--------------------------------
James Love mailto:james.love at cptech.org
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040