Agreed, most everywhere. And I for one think of this group as mostly this:
> Of course, if we accepted that, this group wouldn't have much to do -
> except defend the principle from those (within as well as without) who
> want to use name assignment to achieve other ends.
The ICANN (y'all like "the ICANN"?) does this mostly to keep the cash
cow alive: restrictions will bring value. I will refer to Litt's rule
above to know where I stand on this.
Nicolas
On 18/03/2015 9:36 AM, Timothe Litt wrote:
>
> On 18-Mar-15 08:39, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>> On 18/03/2015 7:56 AM, Timothe Litt wrote:
>>> Doctor, doctor give me the news:
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/15/icann_doctors/
>>> Sigh.
>>
>> What I do not understand is why ICANN could not see these problems
>> coming from the start. There are problems similar to .doctor for many
>> of the other regulated profession gTLDs, claims to the contrary. Even
>> "legitimate medical practitioners." is an ill-defined category
>> covering a wide range of human skills and different certification
>> practices around the globe. Here in Ontario we now have standards for
>> Chinese homeopathic practitioners. Some practitioners qualify and
>> others do not, using criteria that include length of practice as well
>> as formal training. Are they "legitimate medical practitioners"? Yes!
>> Do they qualify for a .doctor domain name? ....ICANN....yea or nay?
>>
>> The regulation of the use of words for professional designations, and
>> definition of scope of practice, are problematic enough at the
>> national level. Trying to impose a global regulatory regime on a gTLD
>> is in the final analysis like trying to herd cats. My bets are that
>> in the long run ICANN will be reduced to a binary decision and simply
>> say no for some problematic gTLDs, and when it says yes, it leaves
>> the fights over domain name use to other jurisdictions. This would
>> not be an abdication of responsibility on the part of ICANN. It would
>> be a recognition that other than denying a gTLD, the regulation of
>> domain name use at this level is beyond ICANN’s own abilities.
>>
>> Sam L.
>>
> As I keep saying, "it's just a name". How it gets misused -
> trademark, fund-raising, consumer mis-identification - is the
> registrant's concern. And if the registrant isn't suitably concerned,
> courts of competent jurisdiction can instruct him - or her registrar -
> or as a last resort, ICANN - to cease and desist.
>
> Of course these outcomes are foreseeable. Like any group (including
> this one, but especially bureaucracies), good intentions result in
> scope creep. Process, lots of rules, full employment - and silly
> outcomes.
>
> You can see how this happened. Public health is a good thing. Many
> people exploit this. For example those who substitute water for drugs
> for profit. So can ICANN call itself a good global citizen if it
> knowingly provides a means for the exploiters to take advantage of
> people? And does nothing?
>
> Well, it wouldn't pass the "would your mother approve if this was on
> the front page of the newspaper?" test.
>
> But it's a complicated problem, that governments have failed to
> solve. So, is "doing something" better than "doing nothing"?
> Shouldn't there be some minimal standard of decency?
>
> And the bureaucracy starts a process of incrementally refining the
> "simple, obvious and wrong" solution...
>
> A little perspective:
>
> Many people in this group argue about domain name choice as a human
> right, others worry about geographic names, or want special
> protection for non-profit organizations, or trademarks. They're all
> making the same fundamental mistake. They're forgetting that a domain
> name is just a name. Of course, if we accepted that, this group
> wouldn't have much to do - except defend the principle from those
> (within as well as without) who want to use name assignment to achieve
> other ends.
>
> Which leads to the other truism: "the road to hell is paved with good
> intentions". Like monetization of the DNS - an attempt to rationally
> allocate names by using economics. Instead of "I was here first" or
> "I deserve this one", we get "I can pay more." Sounds great. In
> practice, not such a smart move. A whole industry has been built on
> allocating names. It moves a lot of money around, but how that
> improves the human condition is lost on me. All I know is that as an
> individual, I sure liked the original FCFS, minimal cost model better.
>
> But that ship has sailed. The bureaucrats will try to do the 'right'
> things. This group will try to steer them toward our ideas of 'right'
> - when we can agree. But none of this will provide clean water in
> Africa, sensible health-care in the US, stop world violence, or
> unravel the physics behind our universe. Or any of the other big
> challenges. Instead we pay $0.20 to ICANN, and $5-$thousands to
> brokers -- to acquire and record names.
>
> Domains are just names. Really. What's really important is what you
> do with the services behind them.
>
> Timothe Litt
> ACM Distinguished Engineer
> --------------------------
> This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
> if any, on the matters discussed.
|