[AusNOG] So ICANN approved generic TLDs

[Terry Manderson]

On 22/06/2011, at 11:40 AM, Mark Smith wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:59:05 +1000
> Terry Manderson <terry at terrym.net> wrote:
> 
> I think that is debatable. Alternative roots and DNS protocol shifts
> would only get adopted if both the existing DNS system failed/became
> unreliable, people choose to use one of the alternatives (and most
> people "choose" to use what ever their ISP chooses), and a network
> effect occurs. That's a high barrier for success of the alternatives.

In an unregulated and democratic arena, I agree that choice represents a significant consideration.

> 
> The ITU does have governments on it's side, meaning that they can use
> laws to mandate their solutions. ICANN need to be very careful about
> what they do and how it is perceived, because if it is perceived to not
> be interest of governments+, then governments are likely to put the ITU
> in charge by laws, because they can. 
> 
> So even though ICANN may say, "if we didn't do this, somebody else
> would", if that is unacceptable to governments, the somebody else may
> be put in charge anyway. 

I don't think ICANN has ever said that. Or would do. My (personal) response 
was in relation to the idea that new gTLDs fracture the internet.

> 
> I'll admit I don't know the details of the gTLD policy, however
> with the cost so high, it would seem that the fundamental control on
> this is the cost. This seems to be a fundamental change in the role I
> think ICANN have played and should play. In the past they've acted
> mostly "for the good of the Internet and it's users/citizens",
> although .mobi etc, could be seen to be the start of the slippery
> slope. This policy now seems to not be able what is good for the
> Internet, but how much money have you got. A non-for-profit inventing
> something new to sell, and using intangible and marketing spiel reasons
> to justify it such as "unleash the global human imagination", and no
> descriptions of the problems this solves with the existing system
> suggests to me that they've forgotten their purpose and mandate. 

You can find the history of the new gTLD program here and how it fits in the mandate:

http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm

> 
> I scares me that when I initially thought about this decision I
> briefly though to myself, "maybe it wouldn't be so bad if the ITU were
> put in charge".

Might be worth reflecting on this article from November 2010:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/internet/do-we-really-want-iran-or-china-in-charge-of-the-net/article1796415/

(note: I do not agree with all the points this author raises, but I do like some of the paragraphs.)

Cheers
Terry