Re: [wg-c] "Public" resources

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@ebarn.com>]

>Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>
>> Regardless of our different views on economic performance is
>> the larger
>> question of whether TLDspace should be administered as a
>> public resource or
>> not.
>
>Let me take a crack at this.
>If we use language carefully, the only truly "public" resources
>are ones that are not scarce and require no allocation or
>exclusivity.
>
>For example, the works of William Shakespeare are in the "public
>domain." No one owns them. There is no scarcity--if I read,
>republish, or perform Shakespeare, I do not in any way reduce
>the works' availability to you. Shakespeare himself is long
>dead, so no one needs to administer or restrict its use on his
>behalf.
>
>That's a public resource.
>
>As soon as a resource becomes exclusive or scarce, its use must
>be administered, and it is no longer truly "public" in
>character. We say that the US National Parks are "owned by the
>public." But this is not true. The national parks are owned by
>the US government and administered, if all goes well, *on behalf
>of* the citizens of the United States, which is a relatively
>small part of the global "public." All other forms of "public
>property" also refer to small segments of the public--townships,
>counties, states nations--and are actually owned by
>oganizational entities that purport to act *on behalf of* these
>collective entities, but often do not.
>
>It is quite obviously wrong to say that the public "owns" the
>parks, or that a public is capable of owning anything at all.
>Ownership means exclusive control, and the right to sell or
>transfer control. I am a member of the public, but I cannot sell
>Yellowstone Park or build a house upon it and live there. So, I
>do *not* own it. The US federal government owns it. I can, along
>with millions of other people, attempt to influence what they do
>with it. But that is not usually a very satisfying or meaningful
>form of ownership.


Let me rephrase my statement to ensure that I am perfectly clear with what
I mean by "administered as a public resource".

TLDspace should be administered by a general governing body that attempts
to ensure that this truly global resource is managed and operated in the
best interests of the largest possible majority of the stakeholders. The
stakeholders being all individuals and organizations that have a vest
interested in a particular, or the whole, TLDspace.

TLDspace does have characteristics of a public domain work, but it need be
administered more like a park to ensure that no one particular interest can
hijack the resource.


>
>When you say the domain name space is a "public resource" I
>interpret it in this way:
>1) you do *not* mean that any memnber of the public should be
>allowed to exert ownership control over the root, i..e, add or
>remove TLDs.
>2) you *do* think that the domain name space should be owned
>entirely by ICANN and administered in the name of a "public."
>Just who this public is is never specified very well. When I
>look at ICANN's DNSO I see a group of no more than 200 people
>actively involved. Most of them represent very specific economic
>interest groups: TM/IP owners, ISPs, IBM, ccTLDs, NSI,
>registrars.


Actually, your interpretation of my statements is very close to the mark. I
have been very careful to avoid mentioning ICANN or any other organization
in particular as the governing body. ICANN may well be that group, but one
thing at a time. Concerning the interest groups within the DNSO, I'm
actually quite pleased that it represents such a broad cross section of
interests. This does need to expand, but for such a new organization, the
representation has excellent depth. Further, all of our work is open for
public review and will be presented for commentary - so even if there is an
inherent bias within the organization, the process ensures that as many
interests as possible are represented fairly. As my dad used to say "if you
don't get involved, and you don't vote - then shut the hell up." In my mind
this applies perfectly here.

>
>But let me give you the benefit of the doubt.
>
>If we say that the name space is a "collectively administered"
>resource and that the administrator is ICANN I can partially
>agree, but there are also implications or interpretations that I
>strongly disagree with.
>
>The agreeable part: there are aspects of domain name
>administration that require broad coordination across a variety
>of Internet stakeholders. There must, for example, be
>collectively agreed-upon rules for adding TLDs to the root. So
>it is fine for the businesses and user groups who are actively
>involved with and interested in Internet administration to come
>together and negotiate, via ICANN, some basic decisions about
>how the domain name space is coordinated, allocated, and
>assigned.
>
>The disagreeable parts:
>
>Collective ownership/administration by Internet industry groups
>should not be equated with "public" ownership. The latter is a
>pretentious and misleading claim of authority that does not
>exist.
>

This sounds like a matter of semantics. If I am alone in my interpretation
of "public resource/ownership', then I will start using terminology that is
better understood. Collective ownership/admin is perfect equivalent
terminology in my mind.


>If by saying the TLD space is "a public resource" you are
>expressing an ideological hostility to profit-making business
>and market competition, I reject your contention.

Not at all. As a matter of fact, I am purely here in order to best
represent the economic interests of my firm. Very few of my comments in
this forum should be taken as my personal opinion.


>
>If "public resource" rhetoric is used to deny that ICANN can
>facilitate competition and innovation in Internet services by
>allocating property rights in TLDs to private businesses, then
>the premise is wrong and so is the policy. It is clearly
>*possible* for ICANN to delegate exclusive administration rights
>to TLDs. Some strong arguments hae been advanced as to some
>possible public benefits that might come out of it. These
>arguments must be dealt with on the merits. They cannot be
>dismissed by repeating an ideological mantras about "public
>resource."

My view is that collective ownership can best balance the economic
interests of firms such as mine. As I mentioned earlier, history is rife
with examples of companies that run amuck in situations like these and the
proper checks and balances must be put in place to ensure that this does
not happen again with the TLDspace.

To get down to brass tacks, I am deeply disturbed by the manner in which
NSI has administered the current gTLDs. Time and time again they have
demonstrated that they are acting purely in the interests of their firm and
their shareholders. However, given the current rules they operate under, I
cannot think of any other firm that would have acted differently. What we
can do is capitalize on this unique opportunity to ensure that this does
not happen again.

>
>You complain about the "monopoly" power of private owners but in
>reality the most significant monopoly in the picture is ICANN.
>And ICANN's monopoly power is not made any less dangerous or
>easier to manage by dressing it up in the language of "public"
>or "community" ownership, as Javier always does. The "community"
>is divided. That should be obvious. We accomplish nothing when
>one faction claims that it "is" the community and thereby
>continues to deny that other factions, other ideas, and other
>legitimate interests exist.


ICANN does possess extremely dangerous powers. So do a lot of organizations
and governments. I also have a lot of faith in the checks and balances that
have been built into the process thus minimizing the potential for damage.
This may be a highly optimistic view, but given the current state of
affairs, they are the best shot we've had in a long time to have proper
additions made to the root.

As far as the community goes, I couldn't agree with you more. I'm not sure
if you're implying that my agenda is to deny the existence of these other
interests, if it is you're sadly mistaken. My main agenda is to best
represent the community as I see it.

The community that I see *does* want new TLDs (I have over 70,000
people/organizations that have explicitly told me this), they want a safe
and manageable process by which these new TLDs are added to the root and
they want a sane and progressive structure in place to manage the
proceedings.

On the other hand, I see other parts of the community that just want new
TLDs added to the root with very little process and structure surrounding
it.

Both of these approaches aren't unreasonable and I'm convinced that there
is an attainable compromise in between somewhere.

I know for a fact that there are others participating here that see a
vastly different landscape. While I don't necessarily agree with everyone's
position, I must at least understand the basis of their views to best
further my interests.

-RWR