[CPWG] Meeting Details - Today: The Future of .ORG: Community Engagement' Webinar

[Evan Leibovitch]

On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 06:06, Wolfgang Kleinwächter <
wolfgang at kleinwaechter.info> wrote:


> 1. Yes, DNS is an infrastructure, like electrical grid. But it is also an
> enabling technology which is operating in a dynamic environment.
>

All infrastructure is enabling technology. But is it noteworthy that
elsewhere the providers of infrastructure are never the same ones who
provide the enabling technology. Airports don't build airplanes, the power
utility doesn't make LED bulbs. Yet in DNS space the same industry promises
to do it all, the infrastructure and the enabling technology on top.

You have already noted that you have been waiting in vain for the domain
industry to deliver the enabling innovations. By giving registries and
registrars full control of everything in this space the innovation has been
forced outside the DNS. There is no shortage of innovation but it's not
happening here. In a world where searches can be informed by GPS and
context-aware, where social media can be ubiquitous or niche, who needs
memorable domain names?

Sure, search results can be accompanied by ads, but the ads are marked and
as a result searches are more trustworthy. Search "cars" and you'll get a
listing of various things to do with cars, including manufacturers,
dealers, repair shops and even the Pixar movie. Search cars.com and you'll
get a single vendor, whoever was fastest or richest to claim it. Same with
cars.anyotherTLD, subject to some ccTLDs' residency requirements.


> One of the differences between the industrial society and information
> society is that the "chain" of delivery becomes a "circle" of delivery
> which produces feedback.
>

No, it's always been a circle -- even the oldest manufacturer would go out
of business if they didn't listen to their customers. What's changed is the
speed and sophistication of the feedback, but it's always been a circle.

(And the circle analogy is not universal. Debates between the waterfall and
agile schools of project management persist, even in IT.)


> With other words, the plumber, with all his/her experiences and knowledge,
> can contribute to the invention of better toilets if he/she takes the
> feedback from the "end user" seriously. With other words - in the ICANN
> context - it is one of the responsibilities of the At Large Community as
> representative of the "end user" to push the "plumber" to contribute to the
> invention of better toilets.
>

You raise an interesting point.

Throughout the public-facing Internet, end-user feedback is built-in.
Online reviews, surveys and gamification have all succeeded to give voice
and incentivize volunteers reviewers.

Compare this to ALAC, which has been designed to fail from the start, When
has it ever been resourced with the tools to enable it to know what global
end-users want from ICANN? The expectation that 25 part-timers -- many of
whom are here because of political expertise rather than subject-matter
expertise -- are going to have an adequate voice in an environment
dominates by fulltime lawyers and lobbyists is simply more baseless wishful
thinking. And any time At-Large DOES come up with a cogent point we're
challenged with the "who the hell are you?" retort.

Yes, I would agree that the way that the non-ICANN world solicits end-user
feedback, in order to improve itself and innovate, is very very different
from how ICANN does it. Unfortunately the comparison does not work in your
favour.

2. Domainnames are identifiers. I remember the arguments from the 1980s
> that domainnames give IP numbers a "human face", easy to find, easy to
> remember, easy to understand.
>

In the 1980s that was a reasonable viewpoint. There was no such thing as
the Web and my choices for sending email were Compuserve or UUCP. But the
Internet has come, yet that same old philosophy drives domain-name
development.

That's what I means when I say that domain names are a legacy technology.
Thank you for helping me make that point

Insofar, a domainname has something to do with "identity".
>

Yes, but ICANN destroyed the value in that when it determined that this
"identity" could and should be commoditized. It re-invented the global
trademark regime (the world's existing path to establishing commercial
identity) with something new that was designed to maximize revenue rather
than serve the identity holders.

In trademark regime you lose rights to an identity by not using it. In DNS
regime you lose rights to an identity by not continuing to pay for it. That
simple difference has had profound negative effect. From the very beginning
domain names were known to all as something that extracted value from the
Internet rather than adding value to it. So as soon as viable alternatives
to domain names were invented (such as algorithm-based search engines) both
end-users and service providers flocked to the alternatives. Domain names
are now mainly necessary primarily as a defensive tool so your competitor
can't buy the rights to your name (something not allowed in trademark as a
core feature).

Heck, one of the better-known DNS-related innovations was created to
*reduce* dependence on "easy to remember" domain names -- the URL-shortener
service.

For businesses, a domainname today is mainly a marketing tool.
>

When the Consumer Trust RT was in formation, I tried repeatedly to make the
case that ICANN's main metric of competition was not between the
registries, but between ALL registries and non-DNS methods for users to get
to Internet services. The industry pushed back at that and to this day I
don't think there's every been an accurate assessment of global trust and
value of domain names compared to search engines, social media landing
pages, QR codes, etc etc.

I don't think the domain industry really wants the public to know the
answer.

And you are right, for an individual searching for something, there are
> "easier" options than to use the DNS. But isn´t this the point? The DNS
> registries and registrars did not understand the real needs of the
> registrants and missed the train.
>

There was no train to be missed. The domain industry tried to create a
product with near zero demand, and the rest of ICANN bought into the
fantasy that it was a thing.

No innovative services and applications by the industry and no conceptual
> innovations by the registrants/end-users/ALAC in the last two decades.
>

I really need to restrain myself from saying something I'll be sorry for.
Blaming ALAC for the arrogance of the industry, the lack of innovation and
the corruption of ICANN is a truly disgusting accusation.

The rest of the Internet did not need to assemble 25 people in a room three
times a year to develop innovative alternatives. The At-Large system was
designed as a smokescreen to hide ICANN's lack of public accountability
after it eliminated direct public voting for the Board. its victories,
though quite real, have been minor and tactical. We never got to challenge
ICANN's core tenet of "identity is commodity" and we still can't. But the
ultimate loss is on ICANN and the DNS; by ICANN's crippling At-Large, it
hurt its own ability to be publicly responsive. Short term gain, long term
pain.

Also: in ICANN world the users are the registrants, the non-contracted half
of GNSO, the community that actually pays for domain names. Where is your
scorn on *them* for not innovating? Unlike ALAC, they actually have some
political power within ICANN since the GNSO can compel the Board.

The reality of today is that end users give all their data to much bigger
> corporations, ignoring that a personal domainname in a decentralized DNS
> would them give a higher level of self-determination.
>

Especially after this discussion has pointed out the multiple fallacies of
that assertion, that you still make the case for personal domains leads me
to think that this is an issue of faith not logic. You're unwilling or
unable to cope with the awareness that you were sold a fantasy and still
pray for it. But people are not as stupid as you think they are. They know
they're giving up privacy but STILL think that a better bargain than
depending on he DNS for anything. There is no user-focused innovation
"coming back" to the DNS because there was never any there in the first
place.

Stop blaming the public. Stop blaming ALAC. The error is yours in believing
the domain industry religion. Own up to it.

- Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20200229/d6d49111/attachment.html>