Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 4 Dec 2019 20:00:16 +0100 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=utf-8 |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Sam,
> I do not think of the issue here it as the "migration of the
> under-served to [social media] platforms. It is more the arrival of new
> digital residents/citizens to the digital ecosystem niche that is most
> attractive to them. That is the various social media platforms, and
> (mainly cell phone) apps that require no knowledge of web pages, domain
> names or the DNS, much less an interest in ownership of a domain name.
Indeed. Amplified by things like the Facebook initiative of free (or
almost-free) "facebook only" phones etc.
> As an economist my tentative view here is that the DNS market is
> reaching a maturity plateau where the growth in demand for domain names
> levels off, grows at slower rates based on economic growth, and faces
> competition from digital apps including social media. The DNS proper
> disappears into the background, almost as a utility infrastructure
> underpinning a multitude of socio-economic activities where users have
> little knowledge of, and no interest in owning, a domain name.
I agree. How often do you type a full domain address these days, as
opposed to clicking on a link or doing a search?
> There is an access issue here but it has more to do with poverty and the
> lack of spending power, and with the lack of built out digital networks.
Often caused by anti-competitive and corrupt government practices.
> It has little to do with the DNS and it is not clear what ICANN should
> be doing here within ICANN operational mandate. It can of course have a
> voice in the wider stakeholder discourse about the plight of the under
> served, but that takes place in other venues.
Indeed. Not really what ICANN is there for.
Julf
|
|
|