Re: [At-Large] My comments on new gTLDs and the role of ICANN
Vitorio - i don't know if i can publish to the atlarge so i'll follow up on
the ga. If you have a TLD in mind - make it operational and announce the
glue. Also get yourself marketed in your community. You don't need ICANN
to run a TLD. You need to run a root for your community. If you have the
means to get your community marketing the TLD - you can easily take over
root service in the communities sharing the tld.
Just remember to protect your rights. ICANN has been know to steal popular
tlds. Anybody for a list .BIZ?
regards
joe baptista
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:43 AM, Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Since yesterday I could not make my comments at the Public Forum, I sent
> them by email to the Board, and I am publishing them here.
> -----
>
> Dear Board of ICANN,
>
> as I was standing in line yesterday morning in the Public Forum, but due
> to prior commitments was not able to attend the "ad hoc" afternoon session
> to express my views, I am sending them directly to the Board, copying the
> Chairman, Vice-Chairman and ALAC Liaison so that at least one of them can
> forward my message to the Board list, and I will publish them somewhere
> for yesterday's audience.
>
> Before I get to my point of substance... I guess that several people
> already expressed their discomfort for what happened yesterday. However,
> please let me reiterate that the Public Forum, where the community and the
> Board discuss in plenary mode about the main topics of the moment, is one
> of the most fundamental elements of ICANN's legitimacy and accountability.
> Everyone knew since the beginning that at this meeting the Public Forum
> would have been crowded and well attended, and the decision to allot just
> one hour for it, then letting VIP speeches eat even more into it, is a
> terrible mistake. I urge the Board to make sure that there is ample time
> for Public Forums at every ICANN meeting - given that this situation
> happens often, I see a need for clear directions to staff by the Board.
>
> Now - I would like to comment as a wannabe applicant for a gTLD
> application which may or may not materialize, but that constitutes a good
> proof for the remaining flaws in an otherwise well thought-out draft RFP.
> Its main purpose is to save an ancient language and culture which have
> been existing in my part of Italy for about a thousand years, but which
> will disappear forever in twenty years or so, together with the elderly
> people that still embrace them, unless we can succeed in transitioning
> them to the Internet age.
>
> A small group of volunteers has been working pro bono for years to create
> online resources in this language - including, for example, a Wikipedia
> edition. The existence of a gTLD specifically devoted to that culture and
> language would make in our opinion a huge difference. It would boost the
> sense of identity and community, and provide a visible home to gather all
> efforts. However, this will clearly not be a business opportunity - it is
> imaginable that initially the gTLD would have just a few dozen
> registrations, which we would gladly give away for free through a
> non-profit vehicle.
>
> I think that what we would like to do is a deserving purpose, at least as
> good as yet another dot com clone, and possibly better than the abundant
> defensive registrations of any kind that we will see. To run a TLD with
> such a few registrations, there is no need for big staff and huge server
> farms - in fact, we are confident that we could get all the time, skills
> and technical resources as volunteer work and in-kind donations. However,
> even if we succeeded in this, we would still be facing an impossible task
> to raise $185'000 now and $75'000 each year just to pay ICANN fees, and we
> would likely score very badly against operational and financial criteria
> designed for multimillionaire global ventures.
>
> Yet, if you think that what we are trying to do is obsolete, amateurish or
> unimportant, please think again. This is the way all ccTLDs and gTLDs
> started prior to the ICANN era, and most of them have become pretty
> successful by now; actually, the only ones going for bankruptcy lie among
> those picked by ICANN through its carefully drafted RFP processes. This is
> actually the way almost every innovation happens over the Internet, still
> today.
>
> The Web? It wasn't invented by CERN, it was invented at CERN, by a couple
> of individuals, in their spare time, as a byproduct of their real job.
> Instant messaging? Peer to peer? Even innovations that overturned
> billionaire industries were invented by one or a few individuals with no
> money at all, or at most by small garage startups. What would happen to
> innovation if the IETF required $185'000 to submit a new Internet draft?
>
> I understand that there are costs attached to the establishment of a new
> TLD, though $185'000 per application, even in an expensive country like
> Italy, is enough to hire five or six people for one year for each
> application, and one wonders why do you need all that work; and $75'000
> per year to keep a TLD in the root, where the work required in the absence
> of special events is literally zero, is plainly ridiculous. However, if
> you want to extract money from rich applicants going for remunerative
> global TLDs, or from big corporations with deep pockets trying to protect
> their brand, that's fine; but please don't make other uses impossible.
>
> There are several pricing structures that could address this issue:
> special prices for non-profit applicants, lower fees for TLDs that don't
> reach a minimum number of registrations, or panels in cooperation with
> appropriate organizations (say, UNESCO) to "bless" applications that have
> specific cultural or technological value. Several people have promised to
> submit practicable proposals in the next few weeks. But it is paramount
> that ICANN doesn't sell out the domain name space without putting in place
> features to address this issue.
>
> In the end, while applicants will be judged by the RFP, ICANN will be
> judged by the overall set of TLDs that it will add into the root. It may
> get 500 or more of them, but if 90% of them will be private corporate
> registrations, and the rest will be dot com clones with some kind of vague
> specialization, ICANN will have failed.
>
> But, looking also at other aspects, I am also afraid that the failure
> might end up being much deeper. ICANN is becoming a well managed business
> entity, through increased staffing and the introduction of corporate best
> practices. However, ICANN is not just a business entity - it is a strange
> beast with much more than that into it. What is optimal for a business
> corporation might actually make parts of the community feel not at home
> any more; and might make ICANN lose touch with its roots, with the nature
> and spirit of the Internet. If this happens, ICANN is doomed - all the
> governmental deals and business partnerships won't be enough to preserve
> its prestige and credibility.
>
> I see as one of the primary strategic roles of the Board that of ensuring
> that the decentralized, flat and free nature of the Internet is preserved,
> or at least not attacked, by the policies that ICANN adopts, and even that
> these policies contribute to, or at least do not stifle, the fulfillment
> of Millennium Development Goals and other worthy objectives in terms of
> development and human rights. These are not just high sounding words, they
> carry a meaning that must trickle down into everything ICANN does when it
> comes to policies. When you are tasked with a fundamental role in
> coordinating the Internet, there's more to life than business as usual.
> Please do not forget this.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <--------
> --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
--
Joe Baptista
www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative &
Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org