<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN hearings
- To: Mike Roberts <mmr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN hearings
- From: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 23:18:28 +0000
Mike:
Where did you find the testimony? I've been checking the Senate Commerce
website hearing notice at
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=22f4a71e-93e9-4711-acec-3ed7f52277cc&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=12&YearDisplay=2011
and have yet to find any links to witness statements.
As to your larger point, I never understood why it had to be a program of
unlimited new gTLDs rather than some discrete number, or why there couldn't at
least have been a limited rollout in the first round to demonstrate proof of
concept. It has always been the prospect of hundreds, or even thousands of new
gTLDs being added near-simultaneously that has generated the intense debate
within ICANN as well as the intense opposition of outside forces. Also, having
attended the TM Clearinghouse briefing in Dakar as well as being on the first
two Implementation Advisory Group calls that some of these protections will be
damn hard to achieve -- TMC seems to require establishing something akin to a
initial global TM database, which doesn't exist at present, in the next 12
months.
That said, I'm not sure that anything short of litigation can halt or reopen
the program at this stage.
Best to all,
Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Mike Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 5:38 PM
To: bc - GNSO list
Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN hearings
Reading over today's testimony, one can't help but have the feeling that ICANN
is digging itself deeper and deeper into a bunker position from which it may
not recover.
I'm reminded of the gigantic underground cistern located near the Blue Mosque
in Istanbul. Worth a trip if you haven't seen it.
After the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Goths and so on came down the
peninsula and ravaged the city. So walls were built. Then sieges were put in
place and folks ran out of water. So at great expense the cistern was dug and
covered over. Then longer sieges, etc. The invaders prevailed.
The moral being that some ideas are so flawed that no amount of building walls
thicker and cisterns deeper will carry the day.
The Kurt Pritz testimony goes on for more than 15 pages trying to cover every
possible contingency of bad behavior connected to new TLDs. And doesn't
succeed.
Even though the BC membership includes members with multiple relationships to
ICANN, some of which are linked to proposed new TLDs, the core rationale for
our constituency is to represent business users of the Domain Name System.
Setting aside IDNs, which have their own rationale, I haven't seen any
enthusiasm for new TLDs among users, and most of us have been opposed but
willing to work on the details with ICANN because that seemed better than
letting it happen without any input from us. What we have gotten for our
trouble is Kurt claiming in his testimony that there is broad community support
for new TLDs. That has never been the case.
The ever greater accretion of protective bureaucracy to the program has
produced a balance of costs and benefits - in the broad sense, including more
than dollars and cents - that is seriously out of whack. It's time for us to
acknowledge this, and say so publicly.
- Mike
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1415 / Virus Database: 2102/4065 - Release Date: 12/07/11
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|