The introduction of the banalitat

Silence and skepticism welcomed ICANNS "procedure" For new top Level domains

After years of fierce fucking around the system of domain names, it was expected that the acquisition of new top level domains (TLDS) was called worldwide as the return of Jesus Christ. That’s not like this: on the 16. November came exactly this notice from Icann, but even under appendages of the politics of the names and numbers, there were little reaction to occasional, rather evaporated belief.

The reports that go out for awkward explanations were amazingly negative. BBC online, for example, opened its editorial in sprinkled tone:

"The new domain names in the network will probably contribute little to an opening of the Internet and an extension of the possible name selection."

An article in the Australian ARN.Net quoted an analyst of the Gartner Group:

"That was not introduced to make life easier for an average company, absolutely not… I think it makes us life heavier."

Remotely, it is difficult to judge how equal to the envision was really absorbed. Some details (for example, that over the new TLDs is still negotiated, and they are only provisional) stinging in the eye, but are far too topfindig: Exact sense of procedures has always been in the coverage of ICANN has always been a strong (For example, see this long tirade published in the otherwise careful New Republic). Other smaller details (for example, that the TLDs will be available in a few months) seem to be credible, but nonetheless inadaquat.

Even the main theme with which the BBC article was initiated, namely the browsingness of the new TLDs to the irrelevancy, does not convince completely. Obviously, the domains of some hundred airlines are .Aero or some thousand museums under .Museum on the domain market do not even appear as a statistically significant value. Much less clearly is how the media sources, which are based on their mains-specific stories, seemed to develop a track nose that the ICANNS work to the coarse part are infected by Icann’s work.

The explanation is probably elsewhere to look elsewhere: Im are sufficient Kustenort Marina del Rey, California, where on 16. November a phalanx of journalists witness the "historical" Spectacles, like the board of Icann, was ineptly divesting on a whole series of co-affections until the result of an extension of the namespace, as is the look like. In any case, the board had no precise idea of what (at least theoretically) exactly the ideal state of a "non-hierarchical", "On consensus-based" Organization meets.

However, one had – and that was unforgivable – also no coordinated plan or procedure to determine the winners; And so the discussions of disorienting cheers fluctuated between sleeping, uneasanted remarks, contalent patios and insignificant preferences. This main impression is hired how the Dot-Comer say, At the end of the day (ultimately) for many cautious observers of the meeting, including the journalists. There was really not much much that one could write; And with the sympathy rest, one risked to get excited about triumphal wradies in the mysteries of the internal machinations of Icann (banned by most editors).

Fortunately, some journalists described the procedure as stated as farce. Brock Meeks from MCNBC, who was present, mocked the procedure "At best moody" and compared the procedure with a Seance in which the spirit of Walt Disney is called.

NTKNOW, which was from a safe distance via webcast, fogged:

".Surname"? I’m sorry, but you did not get exactly such top-level domain onset when you snatch a seven-year-old on the strain and commands him either a suggestion or you miss a blue eye? Strangely, ICANN seemed to have closed this approach to the final meeting on Saturday in LA just this procedure…. (The truth… was so likes and bizarre as you could just want to wish…

Unchecked, however, the silence of the media in terms of ICANNS defective procedures probably drove to restore their reputation in the backlog and thereby the position of the organization still strong. This is worrying if ICANNS already departed from ICANNS to surprise its actions, whether on behalf of the technical coordination granted by the US Department of Commerce, or only on its own statutes.

For example, take the fact that ICANNS’s own statutes (V.1.iii.3b) require that every mockage, the "significantly influenced the operation of the Internet or third parties" – such as the recognition of new TLDs – "a majority among the members of the Executive Board requires." Only twists the nineteen board members of ICANN were involved in the decision on the new TLDs directly. Three (Eugenio Triana, Geraldine Capdebosq and George Conrades) just did not appear. And another four (Robert Blokzijl, Amadeu Abril I Abril, Philip Davidson and Greg Crew) had included themselves in the matter – although Blokzijl and Abril negotiate nonetheless in the previous discussions. So how could ICann the motion of Afilias on one ".info" with only eight Tune? Now, by taking an ad hoc explanation to the procedure that the vote is not the "match" Opinion of the Executive Board Representing Animals, but rather one "Apparent" the present is.

Considering that one needed three voting rounds to come to a result, even these eight rich yes-AHS were already a performance. The reason for this repetition is almost surreal: The board was not sure what you tuned overwhelm.

From pragmatic reasons ICANN requested all applicants to indicate alternative TLD strings in their contributions, which also happened; and from other (but not less pragmatic), the Executive Board used a short description, namely a single TLD, to refer to any application – the first string in alphabetical order. The of Afilias preferred TLD was ".web", ".info" and ".site" were only caught as alternatives; But during a coarse part of the discussions, the board debated over ".info". Anyway, according to the damp tuning, which was decided which onset was accepted, the Boardsquatter Hans Kraaijenbrink requested that the Executive Board should specify the assignment of the TLD to a registry instead of releasing this decision to the ICANN personnel to negotiate.

His application resulted in a confused discussion in which ".web" several times ".info" was replaced because some of the board members thought it was heading. Another application (the on ".iii"/".by" From Sarnoff / Neuvel, who had always emerged the day before the day before, was brought to the case by the free association process of the ICANN employee and Auberberaterers Joe Sims, based on the question of the string: ".iii" Goods (according to Mike Roberts, the ICANN CEO) "unspeakable"; ".by" could come into conflict with the land code for Peru (an ISO code of three letters but not used); And according to Sims, the application differently differed from what had been presented (an assessment that had been reflected in the previous day during the advice); and also (again sims) it would be unwise

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.