[At-Large] Fwd:  Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Thu Dec 10 17:08:24 UTC 2015
In a funny kinda way, Avri's position is the practical outcome. Save and
except we should endeavour to add meaningful protections for the poor slobs
caught in the net. Let me explain.
We say we are for a free market. But those of us who would have been
informed by practical experience know the market is not always a sage in
operation. So we expect, at minimum, some baseline protections in place to
mediate adverse consumer impact.
Especially in instant case where the domain name market is and remains a
privileged space, booted largely on mercantilist economic precepts; some
vital resource is expropriated and a license is granted to exploit one
corner of the market for this resource by paying an exclusionary license
fee. Like it or not, there is a duty of care imposed on the one granting
the license. And that duty devolves to minimizing harm from market
interactions originating from the licensee.
ICANN gives and ICANN receives. So we have in place data escrow and
archiving concordats, registry failover processes and even commercial
successor planning frameworks in place. All good. But not sufficient. For
these are generally tacking moreso to the operational stability and
reliability of the DNS, with consumer protection a poor second, if at all a
Sure, you simply cannot protect every consumer from every fool
choice/action they freely take. But we expect some will be taken in
blissful ignorance. So as the regulator, I feel ICANN is duty-bound to full
disclosure and dissemination of all the relevant known caveats; kind of a
master 'caveat emptor' if you will.
Carlton A Samuels
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> On 09-Dec-15 12:38, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
> > Good evening. Did the WG see this coming?
> The gTLD group that made the current set of recommendations (many of
> which were disregarded)?
> Yes, it did.
> And it realized that as with all products people come to rely on, some
> survive and some don't.
> This is the way it should be with products.
> I hated it when the store I bought most of my clothing came from shut
> But I am learning to cope with it. Found another store, in fact more
> than one.
> Likewise both people and even businesses can learn to cope.
> Web sites can be moved, what's the big deal as long as there is time to
> take care of it?
> The safe bet will still be an incumbent, those who can tolerate more
> risk will have greater choice.
> In time there will be other successful registries, especially those from
> the portfolio applicants who can afford to carry an unsuccessful name,
> and those will be added to the list of available names for people who
> cannot tolerate risk.
> I do not understand this wringing of hands over the fact that some of
> the flowers that bloom die. Everything is temporary, we should be used
> to it. And some of those names will be picked up by those registries
> who have a better idea for how to market them. I think EBERO was good
> idea to give TLDs that might be picked up a chance and to give people
> time to move if not. But expectations of eternal availability for TLDs
> seems silly to me.
> Do you think that guarantees should be available for any subsequent TLDs?
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large