Update (March 4, 2011): My own suggested solution to this dilemma: IDONS - Internet Distributed Open Name System -- or some other carefully engineered and deployed non-centralized alternative, that eventually may allow the existing TLD domain-industrial complex to wither away.

I thought that you might find a quickie survey of the comments to be interesting, amusing, or possibly frightening -- maybe all of the above.

The first group is what I'd call the "Fatalist Faction." I could summarize their point of view as, "It's too late. The Domainers and ICANN have won. We're f----- as usual. The rich get richer as the Internet community at large has no say. The cybersquatters and phishers will have a field day. There's nothing to be done now." And so on.

An equally large contingent I'll call the "Litigation League." These respondents (from all over the world) are sending me all manner of proposals for civil litigation to be aimed at ICANN and/or Domainers who operate the new gTLDs. So far I've counted 18 essentially different proposed rationales for lawsuits aimed at preemptively blocking (or challenging after the fact), either specific ICANN actions related to new gTLDs, or (more commonly) attacking the basis under which ICANN assumes authority to make such decisions in the first place for the global Internet.

If the Litigation League sounds upset, wait until you meet an only slightly smaller group -- let's call them the "Prison Posse." These are the folks contacting me with their arguments that the activities in question rise to the level of criminal activity in one or more affected countries. They argue that aspects of the situation don't merely represent figurative examples of "protection rackets" or extortion aimed in particular at trademark owners and other entities wishing to protect their names, but that actual violations of criminal law are or will be occurring in these regards.

The phrase "lock them up and throw away the key" appeared more than once, and there were three different persons who invoked Guantanamo as an appropriate punishment locale. While one hopes that this latter idea was proposed at least a bit tongue in cheek, it does serve to demonstrate some of the depth of feelings surrounding these matters.

The Prison Posse suggests some pretty strong remedies. But the "Revenge Brigade" makes them look like lightweights. While smaller in number, the revenge contingent may be powerful indeed, given asymmetric technical pressures that could potentially be brought to bear. Their suggestions are a bit reminiscent of a James Bond film, and could be summarized as, "Don't worry about what ICANN and the Domainers do, their lives are going to be made miserable." Blacklists, domain and IP address blocking, and DDoS attacks appear to be the chosen weaponry of this group.

I even received some anonymous Instant Messages from members of this assemblage, more than one of which suggested that DDoS attacks could be "easily arranged" once targets were specified. I would assert that such fervor is ignored only at one's own risk.

For convenience, I'll also include in this category the many respondents who suggested that individual countries should simply ignore ICANN's edicts and go their own way regarding TLD issues, even if this risked significant network fragmentation and related disruptions.

Fatalism, Litigation, Prison, Revenge. A whole world of suggested possibilities, as vast as the Internet itself. Who might or will actually deploy any of these options? I don't know. I'm not a lawyer -- just a guy concerned about the Internet Community and making sure that the Internet serves everyone, not primarily the domain-industrial complex.

I will note here that there were also a few -- literally just a few -- responses that enthusiastically supported ICANN's gTLD expansion plans, seemingly all from persons involved in the ICANN process or domain industry one way or another.

But perhaps the suggestion I received that I liked the most -- at least in an existential sense -- came from only one person, who happens to be an old, old friend from ARPANET days. He suggested that no new gTLDs should be made operational unless personally approved by Internet luminary Jon Postel -- and further suggested that if Jon were not immediately present to judge any particular gTLD application, that application should be suspended until Jon again became available.

Unfortunately, I'm forced to categorize my friend's proposal as the "Heavenly Hopes" concept.

But it's the thought that counts.

--Lauren--

Update (March 4, 2011): My own suggested solution to this dilemma: IDONS - Internet Distributed Open Name System -- or some other carefully engineered and deployed non-centralized alternative, that eventually may allow the existing TLD domain-industrial complex to wither away.