<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/26/19 8:13 PM, Evan Leibovitch
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMguqh1c_2L79Gz7u7kb6ksvrwEjZHUVk-ojYaXmhUVkoVsCOw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">1. Many of us (myself included) are effectively
trapped into the <span class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"></span>legacy
TLDs. The cost of changing to a new TLD is high, and ICANN's <span
class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"></span>arbitrary
ten year limit on registrations, coupled with weak limits on <span
class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span>price
increases, means that even if we change we would remain <span
class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"> </span>unprotected
against predatory pricing.<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div
style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"
class="gmail_default">This goes to the whole ICANN-created
concept of domains as a rental good rather than property.
There could easily be a regime through which the ownership
of the domain, and the contracting of the service to
enable it, are two separate transactions.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I proposed this well more than a decade ago:<br>
</p>
<p>See <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://cavebear.com/eweregistry/">https://cavebear.com/eweregistry/</a></p>
<p>(There's a story about how the name came about, but I'll spare
readers from it except to mention that it derives from the largely
forgotten Microsoft Windows "Me". ;-)<br>
</p>
<p>Here's the lead-in text (typos and the technical error about
presenting a certificate rather than using it for a digital
signature are included):<br>
</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p align="left">.EWE offers permanent domain names for a
one-time registration fee.<em> Names in .EWE never expire.</em></p>
<p class="std_txt">You pay only for domain services; you do not
pay yearly rent.</p>
<p class="std_txt">.EWE strives to protect your privacy by
erasing any information it may have about you once that
information is no longer needed to process the registration
fee. <em>.EWE has no WHOIS.</em> </p>
<p class="std_txt" align="left">Names in .EWE are represented by
a digital certificate. The digital certificate is your proof
of ownership.</p>
<p class="std_txt" align="left">You present that certificate to
the .EWE registry when you update the name servers for your
domain name or when requesting any other service from the .EWE
registry.</p>
<p class="std_txt" align="left">You may transfer your name
simply by transferring the certificate. You may transfer your
name to anyone you chose at whatever price and terms agreeable
to you and your transferee may. You may even buy and sell
your domain name anonymously on an open market or auction; the
.EWE registry considers that to be your business. Your
transferee obtains the same ability as you to further transfer
the name. The .EWE registry offers non-repudiation transfer
service to facilitate transfers while preserving anonymity;
however this services is optional.</p>
</blockquote>
With regard to the remainder of the points: You argue that high
prices are good - my wife makes the same argument about air
travel. She argues that air fares should be priced so high that
it can become pleasant again without buying first class or hiring
a G5. Perhaps you (and she) are correct - but that does not lead
to the conclusion that those who are locked-into those services
must become slaves to whatever price ICANN or the registry feel
free to impose.<br>
</p>
<p>However, as it stands, ICANN's fiat registry fees for legacy TLDs
do amount to a tax on the internet. One can argue whether the
$Billion-plus/year cost is absorbed by domain name buyers or
passed on to consumers. Most likely it is passed on, but in
micro-sized doses so that nobody really notices. But either way,
it is an economic drag on internet activity that accrues to the
benefit of the legacy registries for no reason other than that
ICANN is too lazy, incompetent, or scared to look at the matter.<br>
</p>
<p>With regard to stakeholderism - I said nothing about
representative vs direct democracy. I merely said that the locus
of resolving conflicts between interests should be vested in each
individual human being and nowhere else. Whether those humans
express their opinions directly on propositions or act through
elected representatives does not affect my argument that
"stakeholderism" is a form of Gerrymandering.</p>
<p>(By-the-way, you argue that most people do not have the skills or
time to deal with issues that affect them. To some degree one
can't argue against that. However, I just finished watching a
debate between US presidential candidates - they were clearly
working hard to attract the votes of individual people. So I am a
bit skeptical of the notion that people can not decide what is
best for themselves, that democracy can't work, that they must [or
will] be protected by a paternalist system formed by those who
have "stake" - usually a significant financial interest - in
outcomes. My metric on whether an institution is accountable to
the people is this: can individual people, if they are driven by
sufficient mutual interest, gather together act in concert to
"throw the bums out"? In ICANN the answer is a resounding "no
they can't". Or to put it another way - even if every user of the
internet (excepting ICANN insiders), including every person
affected by the internet, were to decide to dissolve ICANN could
they do so? The answer is "no".)<br>
</p>
<p>I don't care whether ICANN reacts negatively to the word
"regulator". To that I resort to the old cliche that if it walks
like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is
a duck. By that method ICANN is most definitely a Regulator.<br>
</p>
<p> --karl--</p>
</body>
</html>