August 2011 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] Fwd: [IP] Fwd: Dyson: What’s in a Domain Name?

by luca belli

Per chi fosse interessato alle modalità di finanziamendo dell'ICANN, ecco un estratto di un mio articolo pubblicato a maggio da La Revue Administrative. Buon pomeriggio "Le financement de l’ICANN Depuis ses origines, l’ICANN s’est considérablement développée en passant d’un budget d’environ 5 million de dollars en 2000 à 65,5 millions de dollars en 2011. La quasi-totalité de son financement (plus de 90 %) provient des frais d’enregistrement versés par les sujets attachés à l’ICANN. Ainsi, aux termes du budget de l’exercice fiscal de 2011 (concernant la période du 1er juillet 2010 au 30 juin 2011) de l’ICANN « les ressources de financement des activités opérationnelles de l’ICANN proviennent principalement des frais de transaction des titulaires de noms de domaine et sont versées à l’ICANN par le biais des registres génériques et bureaux d’enregistrement qui sont accrédités par et sous contrat avec l’ICANN » 30. En premier lieu, les registres de noms de domaine génériques de premier niveau sont contraints à verser des frais à l’ICANN en raison des contrats subsistants. Ainsi, selon les accords en vigueur entre l’ICANN et les registres, ces derniers sont tenus de payer des frais fixes et des frais basés sur les transactions. En deuxième lieu, l’Accord d’accréditation des bureaux d’enregistrement (Registrar Accreditation Agreement ou RAA) prévoit que ces derniers « doivent s’acquitter auprès de l’ICANN des frais » 31 dont le montant est établi annuellement par le Conseil d’administration. Ces frais peuvent être reconduits en quatre catégories différentes : frais de demande, frais annuels d’accréditation, frais variables par bureau d’enregistrement, frais par transaction 32. Les registres Internet régionaux (RIR) et les registres de noms de domaine de premier niveau de code pays (ccTLD) participent également au financement de l’ICANN. Ainsi tous les registres soutiennent-ils financièrement l’ICANN par le biais d’une contribution annuelle, dont les critères de détermination sont délinéés dans les contrats qui règlent leurs rapports avec l’ICANN. De plus, en novembre 2009, l’ICANN a lancé le programme de procédure accélérée ccTLD IDN (fast track 33) qui permet aux pays intéressés de demander une nouvelle extension d’international domain names. Les pays qui requirent la susdite procédure doivent s’acquitter des frais de traitement : ce nouveau processus constitue donc une nouvelle source de financement de l’ICANN. Enfin, un pourcentage du budget de l’ICANN est constitué des sommes mises à disposition par les sponsors des conférences et par les intérêts produits par les capitaux constituant le fonds de roulement. Ces derniers capitaux augmentent considérablement au fil des années, car l’ICANN épargne annuellement une somme comprise entre 5 % et 10 % de son revenu." Titre L'ICANN et son administration globale de l'Internet Auteur Belli L. Revue La Revue administrative Numéro no 381, mai-juin 2011 Rubrique/Thématique Doctrine et information générale Page 249 Luca Belli Doctorant en Droit Public PRES Sorbonne Universités; Université Panthéon-Assas, Paris 2 Membre du CERSA-CNRS http://www.cersa.cnrs.fr/spip.php%3Farticle1387.html Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:58:56 +0200 From: demartin(a)polito.it To: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it Subject: Re: [nexa] Fwd: [IP] Fwd: Dyson: What’s in a Domain Name? Probabile che la Dyson lo desse per scontato, ma in effetti avrebbe fatto bene a ricordarlo. Ciao juan carlos On 29/08/11 14:38, Andrea Glorioso wrote: Quello che l'articolo non dice (se non ho letto troppo velocemente) e` che la quasi totalita` delle entrate di ICANN provengono dai registry (le organizzazioni che operano i top-level domain come .com, .org etc, nonche` i nuovi top-level domain) e dai registrar (le organizzazioni che "vendono" domini di secondo livello, come slate.com e ausefuladdress.underanewtopleveldomain). Si veda https://charts.icann.org/public/index-finance-fy11.html. Ciao, Andrea On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:41 PM, J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin(a)polito.it> wrote: Esther Dyson in merito alla recente decisione di ICANN di accettare proposte per nuovi TLD (argomento su cui si era soffermato, oltre al resto, Stefano Trumpy nel corso dell'ultimo "mercoledi' di NEXA" di prima della pausa estiva [1]). Sottotitolo della versione apparsa su Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2302414/) "A new Web address system will confuse users and cost business, but Internet bureaucrats like it." juan carlos [1] http://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-33 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [IP] Fwd: Dyson: What’s in a Domain Name? Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 08:33:56 -0400 From: DAVID FARBER <dave(a)farber.net> Reply-To: dave(a)farber.net To: ip <ip(a)listbox.com> Begin forwarded message: From: Richard Forno <rforno(a)infowarrior.org> Date: August 25, 2011 7:32:16 AM EDT To: Infowarrior List <infowarrior(a)attrition.org> Cc: Dave Farber <dave(a)farber.net> Subject: Dyson: What’s in a Domain Name? What’s in a Domain Name? Esther Dyson http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/dyson35/English NEW YORK – A name is just a sound or sequence of letters. It carries no value or meaning other than as a pointer to something in people's minds – a concept, a person, a brand, or a particular thing or individual. In modern economies, people distinguish between generic words, which refer to concepts or a set of individual things (a certain kind of fruit, for example), and trademarks, which refer to specific goods or services around which someone has built value. By law, actual words can’t be trademarks, but specific arrangements of words – such as Evernote or Apple Computer – can be protected. The Internet’s domain-name system (DNS) was formalized in the late 1990’s by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). I was ICANN’s founding chairman, and we more or less followed the rules of trademarks, with an overlay of “first come, first served.” If you could show that you owned a trademark, you could get the “.com” domain for that name, unless someone else with a similar claim had gotten there first. (The whole story is more complex, but too long to go into here.) Our mission was to create competition for Network Solutions, the monopoly player at the time, but we did so only in part. Network Solutions retained control of the .com registry, whereas we created a competitive market for the reseller business whereby registrars sold names directly to users. Now ICANN is taking a different tack, allowing for a dramatic expansion of the namespace with a host of new Top-Level Domains (TLDs), the suffixes that go after the dot, such as .com, .org, and, soon, .anything. The problem is that expanding the namespace – allowing anyone to register a new TLD such as .apple – doesn’t actually create any new value. The value is in people’s heads – in the meanings of the words and the brand associations – not in the expanded namespace. In fact, the new approach carves up the namespace: the value formerly associated with Apple could now be divided into Apple.computers, apple.phone, ipod.apple, and so on. If this sounds confusing, that is because it is. Handling the profusion of names and TLDs is a relatively simple problem for a computer, even though it will require extra work to redirect hundreds of new names (when someone types them in) back to the same old Web site. It will also create lots of work for lawyers, marketers of search-engine optimization, registries, and registrars. All of this will create jobs, but little extra value. To me, useless jobs are, well, useless. And, while redundant domain names are not evil, I do think that they are a waste of resources. Imagine you own a patch of land and have made it valuable through careful farming practices – good seeds, irrigation, fertilizers, and bees to pollinate the crops. But now someone comes along and says, “We will divide your land into smaller parcels and charge you to protect each of them.” Coca-Cola is that farmer. It and other trademark holders are now implicitly being asked to register Coca-Cola in each new TLD – as well as to buy its own new TLDs. Otherwise, someone else may create and register those new TLDs. ICANN’s registrars are already offering services to do this for companies, at a cost of thousands of dollars for a portfolio of trademarks. That just strikes me as a protection racket. The problem is not the shortage of space in the field of all possible names, but the subdivision of space in Coca-Cola’s cultivated namespace. The only shortage is a shortage of space in people’s heads. The issues are slightly different when it comes to “generic” TLDs, such as .green. I recently had a Twitter conversation with Annalisa Roger, founder of DotGreen.org, who told me about the value her group will be adding to .green: marketing, brand identity, raising money for NGOs. But I couldn’t help wondering why she can’t just add the same value to DotGreen.org. Instead, she will have to start with a $185,000 application fee to ICANN, and spend thousands more on lawyers to study and fill in application forms. Of course, you could argue that “green” already has quite a bit of value – as a generic term that stands for something. Indeed, it makes me slightly uncomfortable that ICANN can claim control of it in order to sell it to someone. Suppose, for example, that a cheese maker buys .cheese (as was suggested by one person at a new-TLD meeting recently) and uses it to favor only its own brands? Proponents argue that more TLDs would foster innovation. But the real innovation has been in companies such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Foursquare, which are creating their own new namespaces rather than hijacking the DNS. Indeed, when ICANN started more than ten years ago, we were accused of commercializing the Internet. In fact, we were building an orderly market, setting policies for how much registries could charge, fostering competition among registrars, and making sure that we served the public interest. Unfortunately, we failed to deliver on that promise. Most of the people active in setting ICANN’s policies are involved somehow in the domain-name business, and they would be in control of the new TLDs as well. It’s worth it to them to spend their time at ICANN meetings (or to send staffers), whereas domain names are just a small part of customers’ and user’ lives. And that means that the new TLDs are likely to create money for ICANN’s primary constituents, but only add costs and confusion for companies and the public at large. Of course, if I am right, the DNS will lose its value over time, and most people will get to Web sites and content via social networks and apps, or via Google (or whatever supersedes it in the competitive marketplace). The bad news is that there could well be much superfluous expense and effort in the meantime. Esther Dyson, CEO of EDventure Holdings, is an active investor in a variety of start-ups around the world. Her interests include information technology, health care, private aviation, and space travel. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011. www.project-syndicate.org Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Aug. 29, 2011

Re: [nexa] Fwd: [IP] Fwd: Dyson: What’s in a Domain Name?

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Probabile che la Dyson lo desse per scontato, ma in effetti avrebbe fatto bene a ricordarlo. Ciao juan carlos On 29/08/11 14:38, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Quello che l'articolo non dice (se non ho letto troppo velocemente) e` > che la quasi > totalita` delle entrate di ICANN provengono dai registry (le > organizzazioni che > operano i top-level domain come .com, .org etc, nonche` i nuovi > top-level domain) > e dai registrar (le organizzazioni che "vendono" domini di secondo > livello, come > slate.com <http://slate.com> e ausefuladdress.underanewtopleveldomain). > Si veda https://charts.icann.org/public/index-finance-fy11.html. > Ciao, > Andrea > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:41 PM, J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin(a)polito.it > <mailto:demartin@polito.it>> wrote: > > Esther Dyson in merito alla recente decisione di ICANN > di accettare proposte per nuovi TLD (argomento su cui > si era soffermato, oltre al resto, Stefano Trumpy nel corso > dell'ultimo "mercoledi' di NEXA" di prima della pausa estiva [1]). > > Sottotitolo della versione apparsa su Slate > (http://www.slate.com/id/2302414/) > "A new Web address system will confuse users and cost business, > but Internet bureaucrats like it." > > juan carlos > > [1] http://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-33 > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [IP] Fwd: Dyson: What’s in a Domain Name? > Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 08:33:56 -0400 > From: DAVID FARBER <dave(a)farber.net> <mailto:dave@farber.net> > Reply-To: dave(a)farber.net <mailto:dave@farber.net> > To: ip <ip(a)listbox.com> <mailto:ip@listbox.com> > > > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> *From:* Richard Forno <rforno(a)infowarrior.org >> <mailto:rforno@infowarrior.org>> >> *Date:* August 25, 2011 7:32:16 AM EDT >> *To:* Infowarrior List <infowarrior(a)attrition.org >> <mailto:infowarrior@attrition.org>> >> *Cc:* Dave Farber <dave(a)farber.net <mailto:dave@farber.net>> >> *Subject:* *Dyson: What’s in a Domain Name?* >> >> What’s in a Domain Name? >> >> Esther Dyson >> >> http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/dyson35/English >> >> NEW YORK – A name is just a sound or sequence of letters. It >> carries no value or meaning other than as a pointer to something >> in people's minds – a concept, a person, a brand, or a particular >> thing or individual. >> >> In modern economies, people distinguish between generic words, >> which refer to concepts or a set of individual things (a certain >> kind of fruit, for example), and trademarks, which refer to >> specific goods or services around which someone has built value. >> By law, actual words can’t be trademarks, but specific >> arrangements of words – such as Evernote or Apple Computer – can >> be protected. >> >> The Internet’s domain-name system (DNS) was formalized in the >> late 1990’s by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and >> Numbers (ICANN). I was ICANN’s founding chairman, and we more or >> less followed the rules of trademarks, with an overlay of “first >> come, first served.” If you could show that you owned a >> trademark, you could get the “.com” domain for that name, unless >> someone else with a similar claim had gotten there first. (The >> whole story is more complex, but too long to go into here.) >> >> Our mission was to create competition for Network Solutions, the >> monopoly player at the time, but we did so only in part. Network >> Solutions retained control of the .com registry, whereas we >> created a competitive market for the reseller business whereby >> registrars sold names directly to users. >> >> Now ICANN is taking a different tack, allowing for a dramatic >> expansion of the namespace with a host of new Top-Level Domains >> (TLDs), the suffixes that go after the dot, such as .com, .org, >> and, soon, .anything. >> >> The problem is that expanding the namespace – allowing anyone to >> register a new TLD such as .apple – doesn’t actually create any >> new value. The value is in people’s heads – in the meanings of >> the words and the brand associations – not in the expanded >> namespace. In fact, the new approach carves up the namespace: the >> value formerly associated with Apple could now be divided into >> Apple.computers, apple.phone, ipod.apple, and so on. If this >> sounds confusing, that is because it is. >> >> Handling the profusion of names and TLDs is a relatively simple >> problem for a computer, even though it will require extra work to >> redirect hundreds of new names (when someone types them in) back >> to the same old Web site. It will also create lots of work for >> lawyers, marketers of search-engine optimization, registries, and >> registrars. >> >> All of this will create jobs, but little extra value. To me, >> useless jobs are, well, useless. And, while redundant domain >> names are not evil, I do think that they are a waste of resources. >> >> Imagine you own a patch of land and have made it valuable through >> careful farming practices – good seeds, irrigation, fertilizers, >> and bees to pollinate the crops. But now someone comes along and >> says, “We will divide your land into smaller parcels and charge >> you to protect each of them.” >> >> Coca-Cola is that farmer. It and other trademark holders are now >> implicitly being asked to register Coca-Cola in each new TLD – as >> well as to buy its own new TLDs. Otherwise, someone else may >> create and register those new TLDs. ICANN’s registrars are >> already offering services to do this for companies, at a cost of >> thousands of dollars for a portfolio of trademarks. That just >> strikes me as a protection racket. >> >> The problem is not the shortage of space in the field of all >> possible names, but the subdivision of space in Coca-Cola’s >> cultivated namespace. The only shortage is a shortage of space in >> people’s heads. >> >> The issues are slightly different when it comes to “generic” >> TLDs, such as .green. I recently had a Twitter conversation with >> Annalisa Roger, founder of DotGreen.org <http://dotgreen.org/>, >> who told me about the value her group will be adding to .green: >> marketing, brand identity, raising money for NGOs. But I couldn’t >> help wondering why she can’t just add the same value to >> DotGreen.org <http://dotgreen.org/>. Instead, she will have to >> start with a $185,000 application fee to ICANN, and spend >> thousands more on lawyers to study and fill in application forms. >> >> Of course, you could argue that “green” already has quite a bit >> of value – as a generic term that stands for something. Indeed, >> it makes me slightly uncomfortable that ICANN can claim control >> of it in order to sell it to someone. Suppose, for example, that >> a cheese maker buys .cheese (as was suggested by one person at a >> new-TLD meeting recently) and uses it to favor only its own brands? >> >> Proponents argue that more TLDs would foster innovation. But the >> real innovation has been in companies such as Facebook, LinkedIn, >> Twitter, and Foursquare, which are creating their own new >> namespaces rather than hijacking the DNS. >> >> Indeed, when ICANN started more than ten years ago, we were >> accused of commercializing the Internet. In fact, we were >> building an orderly market, setting policies for how much >> registries could charge, fostering competition among registrars, >> and making sure that we served the public interest. >> >> Unfortunately, we failed to deliver on that promise. Most of the >> people active in setting ICANN’s policies are involved somehow in >> the domain-name business, and they would be in control of the new >> TLDs as well. It’s worth it to them to spend their time at ICANN >> meetings (or to send staffers), whereas domain names are just a >> small part of customers’ and user’ lives. And that means that the >> new TLDs are likely to create money for ICANN’s primary >> constituents, but only add costs and confusion for companies and >> the public at large. >> >> Of course, if I am right, the DNS will lose its value over time, >> and most people will get to Web sites and content via social >> networks and apps, or via Google (or whatever supersedes it in >> the competitive marketplace). The bad news is that there could >> well be much superfluous expense and effort in the meantime. >> >> Esther Dyson, CEO of EDventure Holdings, is an active investor in >> a variety of start-ups around the world. Her interests include >> information technology, health care, private aviation, and space >> travel. >> >> Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011. >> www.project-syndicate.org <http://www.project-syndicate.org/> > Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/14798382-eb93fc78> > | Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=14798382&id_secret=14798382-58a8a…> > Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=14798382&id_secret=14798382-…> > [Powered by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com/> > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it <mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Aug. 29, 2011

Re: [nexa] Fwd: [IP] Fwd: Dyson: What’s in a Domain Name?

by Andrea Glorioso

Quello che l'articolo non dice (se non ho letto troppo velocemente) e` che la quasi totalita` delle entrate di ICANN provengono dai registry (le organizzazioni che operano i top-level domain come .com, .org etc, nonche` i nuovi top-level domain) e dai registrar (le organizzazioni che "vendono" domini di secondo livello, come slate.com e ausefuladdress.underanewtopleveldomain). Si veda https://charts.icann.org/public/index-finance-fy11.html. Ciao, Andrea On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:41 PM, J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin(a)polito.it> wrote: > Esther Dyson in merito alla recente decisione di ICANN > di accettare proposte per nuovi TLD (argomento su cui > si era soffermato, oltre al resto, Stefano Trumpy nel corso > dell'ultimo "mercoledi' di NEXA" di prima della pausa estiva [1]). > > Sottotitolo della versione apparsa su Slate ( > http://www.slate.com/id/2302414/) > "A new Web address system will confuse users and cost business, > but Internet bureaucrats like it." > > juan carlos > > [1] http://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-33 > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [IP] Fwd: Dyson: What’s in a > Domain Name? Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 08:33:56 -0400 From: DAVID FARBER > <dave(a)farber.net> <dave(a)farber.net> Reply-To: dave(a)farber.net To: ip > <ip(a)listbox.com> <ip(a)listbox.com> > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From:* Richard Forno <rforno(a)infowarrior.org> > *Date:* August 25, 2011 7:32:16 AM EDT > *To:* Infowarrior List <infowarrior(a)attrition.org> > *Cc:* Dave Farber <dave(a)farber.net> > *Subject:* *Dyson: What’s in a Domain Name?* > > What’s in a Domain Name? > > Esther Dyson > > http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/dyson35/English > > NEW YORK – A name is just a sound or sequence of letters. It carries no > value or meaning other than as a pointer to something in people's minds – a > concept, a person, a brand, or a particular thing or individual. > > In modern economies, people distinguish between generic words, which refer > to concepts or a set of individual things (a certain kind of fruit, for > example), and trademarks, which refer to specific goods or services around > which someone has built value. By law, actual words can’t be trademarks, but > specific arrangements of words – such as Evernote or Apple Computer – can be > protected. > > The Internet’s domain-name system (DNS) was formalized in the late 1990’s > by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). I was > ICANN’s founding chairman, and we more or less followed the rules of > trademarks, with an overlay of “first come, first served.” If you could show > that you owned a trademark, you could get the “.com” domain for that name, > unless someone else with a similar claim had gotten there first. (The whole > story is more complex, but too long to go into here.) > > Our mission was to create competition for Network Solutions, the monopoly > player at the time, but we did so only in part. Network Solutions retained > control of the .com registry, whereas we created a competitive market for > the reseller business whereby registrars sold names directly to users. > > Now ICANN is taking a different tack, allowing for a dramatic expansion of > the namespace with a host of new Top-Level Domains (TLDs), the suffixes that > go after the dot, such as .com, .org, and, soon, .anything. > > The problem is that expanding the namespace – allowing anyone to register a > new TLD such as .apple – doesn’t actually create any new value. The value is > in people’s heads – in the meanings of the words and the brand associations > – not in the expanded namespace. In fact, the new approach carves up the > namespace: the value formerly associated with Apple could now be divided > into Apple.computers, apple.phone, ipod.apple, and so on. If this sounds > confusing, that is because it is. > > Handling the profusion of names and TLDs is a relatively simple problem for > a computer, even though it will require extra work to redirect hundreds of > new names (when someone types them in) back to the same old Web site. It > will also create lots of work for lawyers, marketers of search-engine > optimization, registries, and registrars. > > All of this will create jobs, but little extra value. To me, useless jobs > are, well, useless. And, while redundant domain names are not evil, I do > think that they are a waste of resources. > > Imagine you own a patch of land and have made it valuable through careful > farming practices – good seeds, irrigation, fertilizers, and bees to > pollinate the crops. But now someone comes along and says, “We will divide > your land into smaller parcels and charge you to protect each of them.” > > Coca-Cola is that farmer. It and other trademark holders are now implicitly > being asked to register Coca-Cola in each new TLD – as well as to buy its > own new TLDs. Otherwise, someone else may create and register those new > TLDs. ICANN’s registrars are already offering services to do this for > companies, at a cost of thousands of dollars for a portfolio of trademarks. > That just strikes me as a protection racket. > > The problem is not the shortage of space in the field of all possible > names, but the subdivision of space in Coca-Cola’s cultivated namespace. The > only shortage is a shortage of space in people’s heads. > > The issues are slightly different when it comes to “generic” TLDs, such as > .green. I recently had a Twitter conversation with Annalisa Roger, founder > of DotGreen.org <http://dotgreen.org/>, who told me about the value her > group will be adding to .green: marketing, brand identity, raising money for > NGOs. But I couldn’t help wondering why she can’t just add the same value to > DotGreen.org <http://dotgreen.org/>. Instead, she will have to start with > a $185,000 application fee to ICANN, and spend thousands more on lawyers to > study and fill in application forms. > > Of course, you could argue that “green” already has quite a bit of value – > as a generic term that stands for something. Indeed, it makes me slightly > uncomfortable that ICANN can claim control of it in order to sell it to > someone. Suppose, for example, that a cheese maker buys .cheese (as was > suggested by one person at a new-TLD meeting recently) and uses it to favor > only its own brands? > > Proponents argue that more TLDs would foster innovation. But the real > innovation has been in companies such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and > Foursquare, which are creating their own new namespaces rather than > hijacking the DNS. > > Indeed, when ICANN started more than ten years ago, we were accused of > commercializing the Internet. In fact, we were building an orderly market, > setting policies for how much registries could charge, fostering competition > among registrars, and making sure that we served the public interest. > > Unfortunately, we failed to deliver on that promise. Most of the people > active in setting ICANN’s policies are involved somehow in the domain-name > business, and they would be in control of the new TLDs as well. It’s worth > it to them to spend their time at ICANN meetings (or to send staffers), > whereas domain names are just a small part of customers’ and user’ lives. > And that means that the new TLDs are likely to create money for ICANN’s > primary constituents, but only add costs and confusion for companies and the > public at large. > > Of course, if I am right, the DNS will lose its value over time, and most > people will get to Web sites and content via social networks and apps, or > via Google (or whatever supersedes it in the competitive marketplace). The > bad news is that there could well be much superfluous expense and effort in > the meantime. > > Esther Dyson, CEO of EDventure Holdings, is an active investor in a variety > of start-ups around the world. Her interests include information technology, > health care, private aviation, and space travel. > > Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011. > www.project-syndicate.org > > Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/14798382-eb93fc78> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=14798382&id_secret=14798382-58a8a…>Your Subscription | Unsubscribe > Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=14798382&id_secret=14798382-…> <http://www.listbox.com/> > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > >

Aug. 29, 2011

Fwd: [IP] Fwd: Dyson: What’s in a Domain Name?

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Esther Dyson in merito alla recente decisione di ICANN di accettare proposte per nuovi TLD (argomento su cui si era soffermato, oltre al resto, Stefano Trumpy nel corso dell'ultimo "mercoledi' di NEXA" di prima della pausa estiva [1]). Sottotitolo della versione apparsa su Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2302414/) "A new Web address system will confuse users and cost business, but Internet bureaucrats like it." juan carlos [1] http://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-33 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [IP] Fwd: Dyson: What’s in a Domain Name? Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 08:33:56 -0400 From: DAVID FARBER <dave(a)farber.net> Reply-To: dave(a)farber.net To: ip <ip(a)listbox.com> Begin forwarded message: > *From:* Richard Forno <rforno(a)infowarrior.org > <mailto:rforno@infowarrior.org>> > *Date:* August 25, 2011 7:32:16 AM EDT > *To:* Infowarrior List <infowarrior(a)attrition.org > <mailto:infowarrior@attrition.org>> > *Cc:* Dave Farber <dave(a)farber.net <mailto:dave@farber.net>> > *Subject:* *Dyson: What’s in a Domain Name?* > > What’s in a Domain Name? > > Esther Dyson > > http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/dyson35/English > > NEW YORK – A name is just a sound or sequence of letters. It carries > no value or meaning other than as a pointer to something in people's > minds – a concept, a person, a brand, or a particular thing or individual. > > In modern economies, people distinguish between generic words, which > refer to concepts or a set of individual things (a certain kind of > fruit, for example), and trademarks, which refer to specific goods or > services around which someone has built value. By law, actual words > can’t be trademarks, but specific arrangements of words – such as > Evernote or Apple Computer – can be protected. > > The Internet’s domain-name system (DNS) was formalized in the late > 1990’s by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > (ICANN). I was ICANN’s founding chairman, and we more or less followed > the rules of trademarks, with an overlay of “first come, first > served.” If you could show that you owned a trademark, you could get > the “.com” domain for that name, unless someone else with a similar > claim had gotten there first. (The whole story is more complex, but > too long to go into here.) > > Our mission was to create competition for Network Solutions, the > monopoly player at the time, but we did so only in part. Network > Solutions retained control of the .com registry, whereas we created a > competitive market for the reseller business whereby registrars sold > names directly to users. > > Now ICANN is taking a different tack, allowing for a dramatic > expansion of the namespace with a host of new Top-Level Domains > (TLDs), the suffixes that go after the dot, such as .com, .org, and, > soon, .anything. > > The problem is that expanding the namespace – allowing anyone to > register a new TLD such as .apple – doesn’t actually create any new > value. The value is in people’s heads – in the meanings of the words > and the brand associations – not in the expanded namespace. In fact, > the new approach carves up the namespace: the value formerly > associated with Apple could now be divided into Apple.computers, > apple.phone, ipod.apple, and so on. If this sounds confusing, that is > because it is. > > Handling the profusion of names and TLDs is a relatively simple > problem for a computer, even though it will require extra work to > redirect hundreds of new names (when someone types them in) back to > the same old Web site. It will also create lots of work for lawyers, > marketers of search-engine optimization, registries, and registrars. > > All of this will create jobs, but little extra value. To me, useless > jobs are, well, useless. And, while redundant domain names are not > evil, I do think that they are a waste of resources. > > Imagine you own a patch of land and have made it valuable through > careful farming practices – good seeds, irrigation, fertilizers, and > bees to pollinate the crops. But now someone comes along and says, “We > will divide your land into smaller parcels and charge you to protect > each of them.” > > Coca-Cola is that farmer. It and other trademark holders are now > implicitly being asked to register Coca-Cola in each new TLD – as well > as to buy its own new TLDs. Otherwise, someone else may create and > register those new TLDs. ICANN’s registrars are already offering > services to do this for companies, at a cost of thousands of dollars > for a portfolio of trademarks. That just strikes me as a protection > racket. > > The problem is not the shortage of space in the field of all possible > names, but the subdivision of space in Coca-Cola’s cultivated > namespace. The only shortage is a shortage of space in people’s heads. > > The issues are slightly different when it comes to “generic” TLDs, > such as .green. I recently had a Twitter conversation with Annalisa > Roger, founder of DotGreen.org <http://DotGreen.org>, who told me > about the value her group will be adding to .green: marketing, brand > identity, raising money for NGOs. But I couldn’t help wondering why > she can’t just add the same value to DotGreen.org > <http://DotGreen.org>. Instead, she will have to start with a $185,000 > application fee to ICANN, and spend thousands more on lawyers to study > and fill in application forms. > > Of course, you could argue that “green” already has quite a bit of > value – as a generic term that stands for something. Indeed, it makes > me slightly uncomfortable that ICANN can claim control of it in order > to sell it to someone. Suppose, for example, that a cheese maker buys > .cheese (as was suggested by one person at a new-TLD meeting recently) > and uses it to favor only its own brands? > > Proponents argue that more TLDs would foster innovation. But the real > innovation has been in companies such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, > and Foursquare, which are creating their own new namespaces rather > than hijacking the DNS. > > Indeed, when ICANN started more than ten years ago, we were accused of > commercializing the Internet. In fact, we were building an orderly > market, setting policies for how much registries could charge, > fostering competition among registrars, and making sure that we served > the public interest. > > Unfortunately, we failed to deliver on that promise. Most of the > people active in setting ICANN’s policies are involved somehow in the > domain-name business, and they would be in control of the new TLDs as > well. It’s worth it to them to spend their time at ICANN meetings (or > to send staffers), whereas domain names are just a small part of > customers’ and user’ lives. And that means that the new TLDs are > likely to create money for ICANN’s primary constituents, but only add > costs and confusion for companies and the public at large. > > Of course, if I am right, the DNS will lose its value over time, and > most people will get to Web sites and content via social networks and > apps, or via Google (or whatever supersedes it in the competitive > marketplace). The bad news is that there could well be much > superfluous expense and effort in the meantime. > > Esther Dyson, CEO of EDventure Holdings, is an active investor in a > variety of start-ups around the world. Her interests include > information technology, health care, private aviation, and space travel. > > Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011. > www.project-syndicate.org <http://www.project-syndicate.org> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/14798382-eb93fc78> | Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=14798382&id_secret=14798382-58a8a…> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=14798382&id_secret=14798382-…> [Powered by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>

Aug. 29, 2011

Re: [nexa] REMINDER: Consultazione AGCOM, fase i): raccolta vostre proposte di emendamento

by Luigi Di Liberto

Grazie Andrea della risposta e scusa il ritardo di questa replica. So che questa cosa sarà di esclusiva competenza della commissione ed il riferimento al PE era nel contesto riferito al fatto che la Commissione è un organo della struttura e non mi riferivo all'Assemblea parlamentare. Se la Commissione non tiene conto delle contraddizioni con la legislazioni nazionali viene a mancare l'appiglio principale, quindi o si trova contrasto con il diritto comunitario oppure neanche vale la pena provarci. Tutto sommato sto cominciando a pensare che sia meglio che AGCom faccia il regolamento peggiore possibile in modo da riuscire a sollevare la "rivolta". Non dimentichiamo che gli indignados sono stati alimentati dal movimento no le votes contro la ley Sinde che comunque e più garantista del regolamento AGCom. C'è piuttosto un passaggio nel documento AGCom che non mi è chiaro, a pag 43 c'è scritto: "Naturalmente sono fatti salvi i casi in cui l’Autorità acquisisca la notizia di una fattispecie che integri gli estremi di un reato, nel qual caso essa è tenuta ad inoltrare la segnalazione alla Guardia di finanza o alla Polizia postale per il seguito di competenza." La violazione del diritto d'autore non è sempre un reato? LDL Il giorno 06 agosto 2011 18:34, Andrea Glorioso <andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it> ha scritto: > Caro Luigi, cari tutti, > > astenendomi per ovvi motivi da qualsiasi commento di sostanza, spero di > fare cosa utile nel precisare che la Commissione Europea valuta la > compatibilita` delle norme (o proposte di norme) nazionali con il diritto > dell'Unione Europea. Non entra invece nel merito della compatibilita` > "interna" a livello nazionale - quel che mi pare tu stia suggerendo con > riferimento all'art. 182ter della LDA (che, ti posso assicurare, i > funzionari della Commissione preposti a seguire l'Italia conoscono bene :). > > Per quanto riguarda eventuali osservazioni sul documento presentato da > AGCom alla Commissione, non sono certo di aver capito cosa intendi. Se ti > riferisci ad eventuali osservazioni *alla* Commissione, sono quasi certo che > la procedura in oggetto non le preveda dal punto di vista formale, anche se > naturalmente tutti i cittadini europei hanno il diritto di scrivere alle > istituzioni dell'Unione Europea sugli argomenti che piu` stanno loro a > cuore. > > Per quanto riguarda la tua ultima domanda, quello che la Commissione puo` > fare o meno e` dare la propria opinione se la norma (o proposta di norma) e` > compatibile con il diritto dell'Unione Europea. Se anche cosi` fosse - e > sottolineo che questa e` un'ipotesi, al momento - tale giudizio non avrebbe > alcuna relazione con l'opportunita` politica, sociale, culturale, economica > etc della norma in oggetto; ne`, come ho scritto sopra, entrerebbe nel > merito di eventuali incompatibilita` o discrasie normative a livello > *nazionale*. > > Last, not least, in alcuni passaggi della tua email usi l'acronimo PE, che > qui su significa Parlamento Europeo; nel caso e per evitare malintesi, ci > tengo a precisare che quest'ultimo non ha assolutamente alcun ruolo formale > nell'intera procedura. > > Mi rendo conto che alcuni passaggi della mia mail potrebbero non essere di > immediate comprensione, sia per i miei limitiv espositivi sia per > l'oggettivamente intricata architettura dell'Unione Europea. Nel caso, sono > a disposizione per chiarimenti. > > Ciao, > > Andrea > 2011/8/6 Luigi Di Liberto <luigi.diliberto(a)gmail.com> > >> Da alcuni giorni mi sto preoccupando del fatto che AGCom ha inviato il >> regolamento alla Commissione Europea, la quale, non trovando problemi >> neppure per ACTA, probabilmente non ne vedrà neppure su questo documento, in >> particolare non avendo presente nei particolari la LDA italiana ove, secondo >> me, trova nell'articolo 182 ter un punto invalicabile per pretendere di >> poter fare quello che scritto nel regolamento (oltre al fatto che questo >> regolamento viene fatto in recepimento di una direttiva e che l'Autorità >> amplia ad altri siti web il mandato avuto per i servizi radiotelevisivi sul >> web), e visto che c'è in lista chi conosce i meccanismi e procedure del PE, >> sarebbe utile sapere se a questo documento presentato da AGCom alla >> Commissione sia possibile a qualcuno (eventualmente chi sarebbe autorizzato) >> presentare osservazioni. Qualora le normali procedure non prevedano questa >> possibilità, inviare lo stesso le osservazioni, che a quel punto potrebbero >> essere semplicemente ignorate, avrebbe un effetto negativo potendo far dire >> ad AGCon che nonostante le "contestazioni" la Commissione ha ritenuto di >> dare il via libera? >> >> Buone ferie a chi sta in vacanza e buona giornata a tutti. >> >> LDL >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > -- Luigi Di Liberto (Coordinatore Movimento ScambioEtico) http://www.scambioetico.org

Aug. 29, 2011

DNSSEC illegale per il PROTECT IP Act

by Paolo Brini

Aug. 27, 2011

Due nuovi studi su ACTA

by Paolo Brini

Aug. 26, 2011

Creative Commons global summit, September 16-18 Warsaw, BY-SA 4.0

by a.dicorinto＠uniroma1.it

Aug. 25, 2011

Sono aperte le iscrizioni all'Open Government Data Camp 2011

by Giuseppe Futia

Il 20 e il 21 ottobre 2011 si terrà a Varsavia la seconda edizione dell'Open Government Data Camp <http://opengovernmentdata.org/camp2011/>, il più importante evento a livello internazionale relativo all'universo degli *Open Data*. L'edizione di quest'anno, organizzata da Open Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/> con la partecipazione del Centrum Cyfrowe Projekt:Polska <http://en.centrumcyfrowe.pl/>, vedrà impegnati sviluppatori, designer, data journalist, personale delle pubbliche amministrazioni e ONG provenienti da *50 Paesi*, che si confronteranno su temi riguardanti il *riuso dei dati pubblici*. Il Centro NEXA <http://nexa.polito.it/> su Internet & Società e LAPSI <http://lapsi-project.eu/> (la rete tematica europea sulle informazioni del settore pubblico) sono /partner institutions/ dell'evento. Ai due giorni di *conferenze*, *workshop* e *code sprint*, si aggiungono sette giorni di *eventi satellite* che si svolgeranno dal 17 al 27 ottobre. Per la registrazione e ulteriori informazioni visita: http://blog.okfn.org/2011/08/22/registration-for-open-government-data-camp-…

Aug. 25, 2011

Internet and Policy Section's Program all'ECPR General Conference (Iceland, 2011)

by Calderaro, Andrea

Cari tutti/e per chi fosse interessato: un aggiornamento (vedi sotto) sulle attività della section in Internet and Policy all'imminente European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR) General Conference, che si terrà in Islanda questo weekend. Verranno discussi circa 60 papers sull'argomento, disponibili per lo più dal sito dell'ECPR. Contattatemi pure se non fossero accessibili, o per qualsiasi altra informazione. E, scusate per l'eventuale cross-posting. Andrea _________________________________ Andrea Calderaro, PhD Department of Social and Political Sciences European University Institute 8<------------- ECPR General Conference 25-27 August 2011 University of Iceland - Reykjavik 2011 Section: "Internet and Politics: Bridging Current Research and Outlining Future Directions" Further details at: http://www.ecprnet.eu/conferences/general_conference/reykjavik/section_deta… Section Chairs Andrea Calderaro, PhD European University Institute Anastasia Kavada, PhD University of Westminster Panels List --------------------------------------------- Comparing Digital Media and Politics Across Regimes Chairs: Bruce Bimber (UC Santa Barbara) and W. Lance Bennett (U. of Washington) Analyzing Internet Voting Chairs: Alexander Trechsel (EUI) and Michael Alvarez (CalTech) Digital Media and Collective Action after Mass Society Chairs: W. Lance Bennett (U.of Washington), Alexandra Segerberg (U.of Stockholm), Andrew Chadwick (Royal Holloway College) New Methodologies for Web Research in the Social Sciences Chairs: Rachel Gibson (U.of Manchester), Sarah Oates (U.of Glasgow), Marta Cantijoch (U.of Manchester) Digital Media and Participatory Democracy: Bridging the Political Gap? Chairs: Yanina Welp (U.of Zurich) and Clelia Colombo (Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona) Digital Politics: Collective Action Born in and From the Internet Chairs: Mayo Fuster Morell (EUI), Johanna Niesyto (U.of Siegen), Sigrid Baringhort (U.of Siegen) New Frontiers in Studying Online Politics Chairs: Lorenzo Mosca (U.of Roma3), Andrea Calderaro (EUI), Anastasia Kavada (U.of Westminster) Voting Advice Applications (VAAs) under Scrutiny – Assessing their Impact on Elections Chairs: Andreas Ladner (U. of Lausanne) and Stefaan Walgrave (U. of Antwerp) In collaboration with the "Open Section" Information Governance: Transformations and its Drivers? Chairs: Jeanette Hofmann (London School of Economics), Sebastian Haunss (U. of Konstanz), Ingrid Schneider (U.of Hamburg) In collaboration with the Section: "Contentious Politics in Times of Crisis" New W(h)ines in New Bottles? Voicing Protest in the Digital Age Chairs: Paul Nixon (U.of Hague), Rajash Rawal (U. of Hague), Dan Mercea (U.of York) In collaboration with the Section: "Political Communication" Political Representation on Web 2.0: Concepts, Methods and Empirical Data Chairs: Asimina Michailidou (U.of Oslo) and Axel Bruns (U. of Queensland) ----------------------------------------------- PERSONAL PAGE: www.eui.eu/Personal/Researchers/calderaro/<http://www.eui.eu/Personal/Researchers/calderaro/>

Aug. 24, 2011