On 18-Mar-15 08:39, Sam Lanfranco wrote:

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
On 18/03/2015 7:56 AM, Timothe Litt wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
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.