[ALAC] Something we didn't think about.
carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Wed Aug 21 15:20:58 UTC 2013
+1, especially with the insight on entertainment bit.
As I watch this enfold and recall Evan's consistent voice in this area, its
hard not to think like the yokel at a NASCAR event; he goes for the crash
he thinks is inevitable.
Carlton A Samuels
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
> I'm not overly concerned about this from an end users perspective.
> This is a matter between warring parties within ICANN's commercial sectors
> and IMO well beyond ALAC's sphere of concern. As soon as any application
> for the string was judged to be non-confusing, what little interest
> At-Large had in this matter vanished.
> From an end-users PoV on confusing strings, the domain name system is
> already well-poisoned. ICANN has already been seen to be silent when
> registrars deliberately use the confusion between .COM and .CO as a selling
> point. (That CC names are beyond ICANN's ability to manage -- even when
> being used as generics -- is a subtlety lost on the public.) And If nobody
> cares about the confusion between .COM and .CO, then it's hard to get
> suddenly concerned about confusion between .CAM and .COM (and also .CA or
> .CAT, for that matter) and even harder to want to get involved in the
> associated infighting.
> The only product that I have extracted from this event is entertainment. I
> find the variety in rulings (two applications for a string non-confusing,
> but a third application for the exactly same string judged to be confusing)
> to be highly amusing in its inconsistency. As Alan has said, the AGB rules
> don't anticipate this, so a few more lawyers will be blessing ICANN's
> existence to pay for their Range Rovers.
> Certainly there are those who won't find this funny, But to someone like me
> who believes the current gTLD expansion is a stupendous mistake, this event
> is just Business as Usual. It's one more demonstration of the many
> unintended consequences that such a botched effort was sure to produce.
> Many have been revealed so far and there sill surely be more to come,
> including some that will be far more severe than this. And given its scale,
> its complexity, and the sheer greed that motivated much of it, anticipating
> all consequences of the expansion was simply impossible.
> IMO, one of ALAC's ongoing roles in this is to track and filter these
> consequences, focused on minimizing harm from those after-effects that will
> affect end-users. This is not one of them, from what I can tell.
> - Evan
> On 20 August 2013 12:57, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> > At 20/08/2013 11:53 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> > On 20/08/2013 17:20, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> >> > Hindsight says that we should have insisted that all string similarity
> >> > objections be groups together, suing the sum-total of the arguments
> >> > for and against. But in our collective wisdom, we didn't.
> >> Substitute /we/ with /ICANN/
> > Not really, that was a real WE. Plenty of opportunities for all of us to
> > have caught this earlier...
> > Also, nice Freudian slip of suing -> using.
> > Oops
> > ______________________________**_________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.**org/mailman/listinfo/alac<
> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> > ALAC Working Wiki:
> > **Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)<
> Evan Leibovitch
> Toronto Canada
> Em: evan at telly dot org
> Sk: evanleibovitch
> Tw: el56
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
More information about the ALAC