Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Ken:
I understand your public trust rationale very well, having
studied US broadcasting regulation and the emergence of
the public trustee model as the basis for assigning broadcast
licenses in the mid-1920s.

As you may suspect, one of the principles that animates
my approach to these issues is to studiously *avoid*
turning TLDs into a "public trust." Such an approach
turns ICANN into a global regulatory agency and will
give it control that will certainly be extended
into other areas, such as content.

Public trustee concepts are founded on the notion of
scarcity, of a sort that simply does not exist in the name
space. Furthermore, they create a powerful incentive
to maintain artificial scarcity, in order to maximize the
leverage of the regulator. We have learned this the hard
way in broadcasting. Regulators and broadcasters
colluded for decades to restrict the number of channels
available to the public in order to preserve the special
status of the "public trust."

I would also deny your last assertion, which is that
if we declare a resource a "public trust" then no one
owns it. It just isn't true. ICANN will own it, because
ICANN will be the ultimate authority that decides who
qualifies as a trustee and who doesn't. I also deny
that the concept of "the public" has any meaning
in a global context. Humanity is just too diverse. All
you will do is set in motion a nasty political competition
(which we are already beginning to experience, only
it will get worse, not better) for control of the right to
define what is in "the public interest."

ICANN's job, as I see it, is simply to coordinate the root
so that the different interests and entities that want access
to it can get access to it.

Doing that well will be hard enough.

Ken Stubbs wrote:

> my vote would be for option 1 as stated below
>
> QUESTION ONE: HOW MANY NEW gTLDS, AND HOW FAST?
>
> Option 1: Without regard to whether it would be desirable to have many
> gTLDs in the long term, ICANN should proceed now by adding only a few, and
> then pausing for evaluation.  Only after assessing the results should it
> initiate any action to add more.
>
> i would also like to add a few comments to this response:
>
> "we should consider viewing  gtld's as a "public trust"
> vested in an organization or entity for a specific period of time rather
> than property owned by anyone . we could then develop
> guidelines for administration of that "trust" and placement of this " trust"
> in the hands of whatever entity  had the ability to administer that "trust"
> the most
> efficiently and effectively for the benefit of the internet users and the
> general public at large.
>
> naturally you could develop methodologies for evaluating the administration
> of this trust and  a periodic process could be put  into place to insure
> that the "trust" was always placed in the most efficient and effective care
> (i.e. periodic review and re-bidding)
>
> in effect... no one individual or entity owns it"
>
> Ken Stubbs
> e-mail:  kstubbs@corenic.org
> ICQ#: 18786107
> Tel: 1 352 750-9776