NCSG Principles-- [economic] nature of names : Public Goods

[Nicolas Adam]

First principle I would like to submit goes to the nature of the 
resources that we deal with here, domain names.

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.

I suggest we address this nature on a few ontological axis. I will start 
with the economic axis.

############

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.

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.

[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]

So, this *public good* nature of domain names would be its fundamental 
economic *nature*. That is *what* they are, economically.

We can debate this. Anticipated policy implications are welcome.

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 ..."

######

Just to give examples of where this would lead, as a general scheme:

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.

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.

But for now i'd like to hear what y'all think of this scheme in general, 
and of this principle in particular.

Nicolas

On 12/1/2011 4:46 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote:
>
> 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 **fundamental** 
> 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:
>
> 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)?
>
> 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:
>
> ·NCSG prioritises the non-commercial, public interest aspects of 
> domain name policy.
>
> ·Guardianship: gTLD policy should be focused on responsibilities and 
> service to the community.
>
> ·Multi-stakeholder: gTLD policy should be determined by open 
> multi-stakeholder processes.
>
> ·Human rights: gTLD policy should meet human rights standards, 
> including transparency and the rule of law.
>
> ·Equity: parties to domain registrations (including non-commercial 
> registrants) should be on a level playing field; domain registrations 
> should be first come first served.
>
> ·Competition and choice: gTLD policy should ensure competition and 
> choice for non-commercial registrants and non-commercial internet users.
>
> ·In case of conflict, the principle of guardianship prevails.
>
> If necessary, we can split discussion of each of these policy 
> principles into separate discussions on the list, but perhaps we can 
> start here ....
>
> Joy
>
> Joy Liddicoat
>
> Project Coordinator
>
> Internet Rights are Human Rights
>
> www.apc.org <http://www.apc.org>
>
> Tel: +64 21 263 2753
>
> Skype id: joy.liddicoat
>
> Yahoo id: strategic at xtra.co.nz
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111213/299c809c/attachment-0001.html>