[NCSG-Discuss] Closed Generics [proposals]

[Maria Farrell]

Hosting a discussion in Beijing would be a great idea. People are eager to
debate it so would come to our meeting.

What do we need to do to make it happen..?

Maria

On 27 February 2013 06:14, Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com> wrote:

> As I absorb the two sides of this discussion (seeing merits in both) I'm
> finding myself wanting a more conceptual framework in which to evaluate the
> points.
>
> Technically, a domain (TLD) is a domain (2LD) is a domain (3LD).  [Point
> Milton]
>
> Administratively, different levels have different agents of control.  It
> seems to me that in one sense the *control* is the important thing.  Who
> gets to determine who gets to have/control one of these, at whatever level?
> [Point Kathy]
>
> If TLDs were ubiquitous (following their being cheap and easy to set up) it
> wouldn't matter so much who controlled one string or another because there
> would be robust competition and alternatives.  Milton's stance would be
> supported by real non-scarcity in TLDs.
>
> In fact, though, even though TLDs are being opened up from near stasis, the
> barrier to entry of application fee and the simple fact of finite
> administrative bandwidth in processing applications means that there will
> still be some degree of meaningful scarcity in the system for the
> foreseeable future.
>
> In that case, is there a strategic advantage (economic/political) in
> getting the string before someone else?  (Especially if alternatives are
> not easy to come by -- like if .book exists, but not all those others like
> .bks, etc.)  Seems there could be, and that should be a practical
> consideration even if in principle it ought to be moot.
>
> Or it could *all* be moot if no one really uses domains to discover web
> sites anymore.  What is the real, practical economic/political value of
> controlling a TLD?  [Point Andrew]
>
> Some points here are contingent upon contingencies of current TLD policy --
> in principle they could be mooted by a more global change in policy, but
> that more global change in policy may not be realistically forthcoming
> given the quango-mire that is ICANN.
>
> So, what I'd love to see is a tracing of a dependency-structure for current
> and proposed policies.
>
> I'm nowhere near working this out comprehensively myself, but would love to
> see those more experienced with the situation in the long term do so, if
> possible.
>
> I think Pro/Con can lead us toward this (sort of a case-study discovery
> process), but I don't think it will get us all the way there by itself.
> Not to discourage it at all, but maybe let's aim further too, yes?
>
> Dan
>
> PS: Regrettably, I can't be present at any forthcoming in-person meetings,
> Beijing or otherwise.  But, I can occasionally get to email when I have a
> passing opportunity.  Maybe I can offer some questions/comments along the
> way as the discussion develops.
>
>
> --
> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
> not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
>
>
>
> At 12:41 PM +0100 2/26/13, Avri Doria wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I think this is a great idea, and something that would best be done by
> >someone who was not partisan on the issue.
> >
> >Where you offering?
> >
> >avri
> >
> >On 26 Feb 2013, at 12:20, Clarinettet wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> May I submit one easy suggestion. Obviously, as every option, there are
> >>pros and cons. To adopt a common position, we need to balance the pros
> >>and cons. I suggest a worksheet to be created with two columns
> >>representing each side's views and vote from there. That way, everyone
> >>can validity judge and discuss. It's not very easy to follow discussions
> >>on series of emails.
> >>
> >> Do you agree?
> >>
> >> Tara Taubman
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130227/e8a884b3/attachment-0001.html>