| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
M. Stuart Lynn prefers restricted domains
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 68 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
Except for the fact that if ICANN makes such a limit, they're restricting what legally should be a free market. That's against the law in the United States, and that's where ICANN is.
Philosophically, you may be right. But it's too late for philosophy. Once ICANN allowed Afilias and Neulevel in to the market, they had to allow more in. If there's a problem, they'd have to remove .info and .biz (and most likely .com as well).
They can't do that.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Re: New TLDs
by Anonymous
|
|
|
|
|
|
If ICANN & DoC say that they shouldn't add new unrestricted TLDs, then that is not being anticompetitive, they are regulating. Just because some new TLDs are added, does not mean that they have to add one for every group that bids. Decisions have to be made, which was add 7 new TLDs, see how they work, and maybe add more. ICANN hasn't said they won't add new TLDs, just that any new TLDs will likely be restricted to groups so that we can all avoid the conflicts that have appeared with .info & .biz. If you don't like it, there are plenty of ccTLDs selling domains.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
Anon writes: ...any new TLDs will likely be restricted to groups so that we can all avoid the conflicts that have appeared with .info & .biz. That's the line that ICANN seems to be spinning, but it doesn't necessarily follow for a number of reasons. First, .biz and .info are just two ways of doing it, surely there are other models and methods that could/should be tried. Second, .biz and .info were restricted in some ways, and continue to be in others. Third, using sunrise and using a lottery were problematic from the get-go, it isn't surprising to some that they were/are beset by problems. ICANN, or at least Mr. Cerf and Mr. Lynn, would have us believe that they gave open gTLDs their best shot and it didn't work. If the .biz and .info fiascos were ICANN's best shots, this isn't an argument for not allowing more new open gTLDs so much as an argument for allowing someone else to create new open TLDs properly. ICANN holding a monopoly gifted by the USG means either that that won't happen, or that those opposing the ICANN/USG monopoly will route around it. I don't see the latter happening over this issue alone, but add it up with others past, present, and future, and the rest of the world may well eventually have to build their own sandbox. If you don't like it, there are plenty of ccTLDs selling domains. Quite so. I've said that ICANN's unwillingness and/or inability to scale the gTLD namespace properly provides an incentive to ccTLDs, both open and restricted, to grow into the vacuum and we are already seeing signs of that. Veri$ign can be called many things, but stupid isn't one of them. They bought .tv and .cc for a reason. Ditto for 'alt roots' or various DNS overlays. Veri$ign has a stake in RealNames, for example, and I suspect that that will increase to complete control real soon now. ICANN is monopolistic, so is Veri$ign, where their interests overlap they either make deals or fight it out using various methods, often underhanded. Neither party cares one whit for the end-consumer. Where their interests don't overlap or interfere they are left to run free with little control, again benefitting themselves at the end-consumer's expense. This false dichotomy is a great racket for both of them. We are led to believe they keep each other honest, with the USG there as a backup to watch both of them. That is all an illusion. The principal powers in both monopolies continue to make gobs of money, and the USG powers get campaign contributions and maintain, even increase, control of the net. A very cozy relationship that all the talk in the world won't change. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Actually, there now is such a requirement. ICANN and DoC have created this market in such a way that they're responsible to the law governing markets.
The day will come that they're forced to either open it up or shut it all down.
And, once again, ICANN is not a regulator. ICANN is specifically not a regulator, in fact.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
Technical coordination is the same as regulation, and whether they are "technically" a regulator, ICANN decisions have the effect of regulation of the Internet.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
You obviously don't grasp the implications of being found a market regulator as it relates to unfair competition.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
ICANN has nothing to worry about since the competition is not unfair.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
There are applicants for unrestricted TLDs that were denied access to the market based on false information.
That's unfair. It's also illegal. Give it time.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
