Re: Public Resource vs Private Ownership

[Cary Karp <ck@icom.org>]

Quoting John Charles Broomfield:

> It goes around in circles again to the question of who decides who gets
> private ownership of a TLD. ".museum" is privately held, but ".auto" is
> shared. As the Science Museum does NOT want to be subject to ransom, it
> registers as "science.auto" ??? Strange at least. 

What about hybrid solutions?

The International Council of Museums (ICOM - the UNESCO NGO in that
sector) has a strong interest in seeing a .museum come into being. On the
assumption that the gTLD-MoU model is implemented, ICOM envisions .museum
as a second-wave addition to the suite of gTLDs operated by the CORE
registrars. ICOM's interests in the process are, obviously, to have the
domain created and to provide CORE with support in its operation. Should
monopoly registries be created, ICOM will try to exert the same influence
through whatever channels ultimately seem appropriate but would very much
like not to be thrust into the registry biz, itself.

A key factor here is reducing the risk for museums being unfairly
exploited by a profit-seeking monopoly domain operator. In other words,
ICOM would be prepared to do all that it can to *prevent* registrants
in .museum from being "subject to ransom". I'm quite sure that there are
other organizations with a similar interest in acting in this manner for
the public good. (I'd hope that we're reconfirming a basis for the
gTLD-MoU, here.)

ICOM's formal status puts a tremendous amount of weight behind its
definition of what constitutes a museum. Indeed, in any context where
folks with a more politically structured approach to governance issues
need such a definition, ICOM's is almost sure to be it. In any case, it is
difficult to see what real value a .museum domain would have without
ICOM's explicit support. 

As far as the Science Museum goes -- I would suspect that a casual Net
user would be more likely to find them if they were at science.museum than
in science.auto. Is it not exactly this type of enhancing the likelihood
of discovery, however tenuous, that is one of the cornerstones of gTLD
value?  What, by the way, would prevent them from hedging their bets and
registering in both?  (Yeah - I know that the spectre of having to
register in a zillion different domains is a profound argument against a
significant expansion of TLD space.)

Cary Karp
ck@icom.org