NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] The People Respond: How to Deal with ICANN's TLDs Mess!
The People Respond: How to Deal with ICANN's TLDs Mess!
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000821.html
Greetings. I've been receiving a very high volume of responses to my
latest note regarding ICANN and their planned flood of new TLDs (more
properly, gTLDs) - http://j.mp/gIKTho (Lauren's Blog). Many of these
responses could be best described as, well, uh, rather *intense*.
I thought that you might find a quickie survey of the comments to be
interesting, amusing, or possibly frightening -- maybe all of the
above.
The first group is what I'd call the "Fatalist Faction." I could
summarize their point of view as, "It's too late. The Domainers and
ICANN have won. We're f----- as usual. The rich get richer as the
Internet community at large has no say. The cybersquatters and
phishers will have a field day. There's nothing to be done now." And
so on.
An equally large contingent I'll call the "Litigation League." These
respondents (from all over the world) are sending me all manner of
proposals for civil litigation to be aimed at ICANN and/or Domainers
who operate the new gTLDs. So far I've counted 18 essentially
different proposed rationales for lawsuits aimed at preemptively
blocking (or challenging after the fact), either specific ICANN
actions related to new gTLDs, or (more commonly) attacking the basis
under which ICANN assumes authority to make such decisions in the
first place for the global Internet.
If the Litigation League sounds upset, wait until you meet an only
slightly smaller group -- let's call them the "Prison Posse." These
are the folks contacting me with their arguments that the activities
in question rise to the level of *criminal* activity in one or
more affected countries. They argue that aspects of the situation
don't merely represent figurative examples of "protection rackets" or
extortion aimed in particular at trademark owners and other entities
wishing to protect their names, but that actual violations of criminal
law are or will be occurring in these regards.
The phrase "lock them up and throw away the key" appeared more than
once, and there were three different persons who invoked Guantanamo as
an appropriate punishment locale. While one hopes that this latter
idea was proposed at least a bit tongue in cheek, it does serve to
demonstrate some of the depth of feelings surrounding these matters.
The Prison Posse suggests some pretty strong remedies. But the
"Revenge Brigade" makes them look like lightweights. While smaller in
number, the revenge contingent may be powerful indeed, given
asymmetric technical pressures that could potentially be brought to
bear. Their suggestions are a bit reminiscent of a "James Bond"
film, and could be summarized as, "Don't worry about what ICANN and
the Domainers do, their lives are going to be made miserable."
Blacklists, domain and IP address blocking, and DDoS attacks appear to
be the chosen weaponry of this group.
I even received some anonymous Instant Messages from members of this
assemblage, more than one of which suggested that DDoS attacks could
be "easily arranged" once targets were specified. I would assert that
such fervor is ignored only at one's own risk.
For convenience, I'll also include in this category the many
respondents who suggested that individual countries should simply
ignore ICANN's edicts and go their own way regarding TLD issues, even
if this risked significant network fragmentation and related
disruptions.
Fatalism, Litigation, Prison, Revenge. A whole world of suggested
possibilities, as vast as the Internet itself. Who might or will
actually deploy any of these options? I don't know. I'm not a
lawyer -- just a guy concerned about the Internet Community and making
sure that the Internet serves *everyone*, not primarily the
domain-industrial complex.
I will note here that there were also a few -- literally just a few --
responses that enthusiastically supported ICANN's gTLD expansion
plans, seemingly all from persons involved in the ICANN process or
domain industry one way or another.
But perhaps the suggestion I received that I liked the most -- at
least in an existential sense -- came from only one person, who
happens to be an old, old friend from ARPANET days. He suggested that
no new gTLDs should be made operational unless personally approved by
Internet luminary Jon Postel ( http://j.mp/gr3egS [Wikipedia] ) -- and
further suggested that if Jon were not immediately present to judge
any particular gTLD application, that application should be suspended
until Jon again became available.
Unfortunately, I'm forced to categorize my friend's proposal as the
"Heavenly Hopes" concept.
But it's the thought that counts.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Google Buzz: http://bit.ly/lauren-buzz
Quora: http://www.quora.com/Lauren-Weinstein
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com