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.