[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Fwd: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input
Austin, Donna
Donna.Austin at team.neustar
Mon Feb 5 19:52:03 UTC 2018
All
Is it our intention to consider the RSSAC response along with responses received from SSAC and ICANN GDD, all available at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+Correspondence
I think it’s important that we do so given they all responded to the one letter from Jeff and Avri.
Donna
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 10:48 AM
To: 'lists at christopherwilkinson.eu' <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Fwd: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input
Excellent points which certainly merit discussion. I realize the original policy was always toward “unlimited” TLDs. But seriously the cost of entry is SO HIGH.
It is tempting to draw some analogies here with (1) lack of Internet access and (2) lack of computer hardware and (3) lack of cell phone service
Is there a “Great Divide” developing in the world of gTLDs? Will small business be left behind?
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>
_____________________________
[cid:image001.png at 01D39E77.BB802270]
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=GAlzklr7GQF0CGc-xPIJDhNeF6cUY9PV-LpdDGbqamM&s=P01gk5nRasgzGmKaOdKZYppgTvHGh_bU2FV-6DsaTUM&e=>
From: lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> [mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 11:41 AM
To: Jeff Neuman
Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Fwd: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input
Good evening:
Whatever domain names may have become, I think that the vast expansion - in the past and perhaps to come - has been mainly at the second level.
At the top level, I still have serious misgivings:
- The sudden, large expansion following the previous round has resulted in a significant proportion of Registries that are not financially viable,
at least on a stand-alone basis. (c.f. ‘vertical' integration)
- we still lack market research by ICANN as to the business scope for introducing even more new TLDs.
Both in terms of the aggregate DNS market and in terms of the macro-economic context.
- I am sensitive to warnings about how many and how quickly changes to the Root can be relied upon to maintain stability and security. I defer to RSSAC among others
- I would love to live in a DNS world where a TLD would represent <significance or memorability to a small community, locality or even a family>
I would be on for that! But last time I looked, the costs and risks associated with creating a new TLD Registry are way beyond small communities’ resources.
ICANN oblige.
Just a few thoughts
CW
(Speaking personally, of course.)
On 5 Feb 2018, at 17:20, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>> wrote:
Completely personal opinion here, but I think that comment from the RSSAC is a “red herring” meaning that it ignores the rationale for new TLDs. The RSSAC is looking at the notion of domain names as only being for the original purposes in which they were intended: Namely to create more memorable representations of network resources, because it was perceived to be too difficult to remember IP Addresses.
What it ignores is that the use of domain names, whether at the top or the second level, has evolved into being used for many other purposes than purely that for which it was originally designed. As stated by John Klensin in IETF RFC 3467 (2003),
“The DNS was designed to identify network resources. Although there was speculation about including, e.g., personal names and email addresses, it was not designed primarily to identify people, brands, etc. At the same time, the system was designed with the flexibility to accommodate new data types and structures, both through the addition of new record types to the initial "INternet" class, and, potentially, through the introduction of new classes.”
Despite not being designed for these purposes, that is what has evolved. Domains are now used to identify computers, machines, organizations, people, places and things. Whether used for commercial or non-commercial purposes, they identify brands, people, geographic locations and things to their relevant user base. That user base may be global, national, local or even familial. A domain may be used for web traffic, machine-machine communication, e-mail or a host of other potential applications. It is up to the owner of the domain name (Or TLD) to make its intended user base aware of its existence. The significance of the domain is then ascertained and judged by the user base and not those outside of its intended user base.
The RSSAC is asking an existential policy question of the GNSO community. One that has no right or wrong answer and one which has no clearly ascertainable answer. The answer to the question will differ to every person that attempts to answer it. There is no way to measure the global significance or memorability of any particular namespace. There is no purely scientific way to answer that question. And even if there was, why would it be limited to “library and cognitive science.” Why not look at it from an Anthropological, Economical, Educational, Historical, Linguistic, Philosophical, Political, Psychological, Sociological, Sustainability or other type of social science perspective?
My personal view is that regardless of the global significance or memorability of a namespace, that namespace may have significance or memorability to a small community, locality or even a family. It may not even be used in the traditional sense and not intended to have any memorability by any persons or groups, but may only be significant to other machines. One of the things discussed at Namescon last week was a venture that Donuts has invested in which is working on using a TLD Namespace for a Geographical mapping tool to map the entire world down to the centimeter. If it does use the TLD namespace to do this, then there may or may not need to be any memorability of the namespace to any human so long as devices knew how to find the appropriate location.
Sorry for the long e-mail and I will get off my soapbox, but I am not a huge fan of spending any more time on that question given that in my opinion it misses the point and relevance of what domains (and TLDs) have become.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw
From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com]
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 1:15 PM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Fwd: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input
I think the following point made by the RSSAC is very significant and certainly deserves further discussion.
* Using concepts from the disciplines of library and cognitive science, what number of TLDs results in their loss of memorability and significance?
Hard to balance this with freedom of expression goal, but it should be given more consideration. In addition, the marketplace trend is toward apps – not more websites.
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>
_____________________________
<image001.png>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=GAlzklr7GQF0CGc-xPIJDhNeF6cUY9PV-LpdDGbqamM&s=P01gk5nRasgzGmKaOdKZYppgTvHGh_bU2FV-6DsaTUM&e=>
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2018 7:05 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Fwd: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input
Just in from the RSSAC. We will add the questions asked of us to the appropriate Work Tracks. Although some of the, may naturally fit in Work Track 4, others may be overall questions to the Working Group.
If you have any thoughts on responses, please do not hesitate to weigh in and we will start keeping track on a Google Doc.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President
Com Laude USA / Valideus USA
1751 Pinnacle Dr., Suite 600
McLean, VA 22102
Jeff.Neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:Jeff.Neuman at comlaude.com>
+1 (202) 549-5079
Begin forwarded message:
From: Steve Sheng <steve.sheng at icann.org<mailto:steve.sheng at icann.org>>
Date: February 2, 2018 at 8:49:36 AM EST
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>, avri doria <avri at apc.org<mailto:avri at apc.org>>
Cc: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>>, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>, "rssac at icann.org<mailto:rssac at icann.org>" <rssac at icann.org<mailto:rssac at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG: Request for Input
Dear Jeff and Avri,
Per your request on 14 September 2017, attached please find RSSAC’s response on root scaling.
In addition to its formal advice, the RSSAC raises the following questions for the wider community (including GNSO) to consider. These questions go beyond the specifics of operations of DNS, the IANA functions, and the root server system, to broader issues of the costs and benefits of aggressive expansion of the root zone:
* Independent of expanding the commercial buoyancy of the DNS industry, how does the addition of many thousands of new gTLDs to the root zone make the Internet better for the people who use it, aside from the addition of IDNs for language and culture?
* Using concepts from the disciplines of library and cognitive science, what number of TLDs results in their loss of memorability and significance?
* Is adding a significantly large number of TLDs (e.g., more than 100,000) to the root zone, and presumably augmenting the business interests in the addressing system, a sustainable model for the DNS? At what point might this model fail. What next steps for naming system innovation are required, and when?
Best Regards
Steve Sheng on behalf of
Tripti Sinha and Brad Verd
Co-Chairs, Root Server System Advisory Committee
________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Dnewgtld-2Dwg&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=GAlzklr7GQF0CGc-xPIJDhNeF6cUY9PV-LpdDGbqamM&s=AWXZoi4xRwwLlONXlUDsBAqNNfxkKnWX4OcZUI37Z3Q&e=>
________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180205/7ba3448e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6488 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180205/7ba3448e/image001-0001.png>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg
mailing list