[ncdnhc-discuss] Fw: In the IPv8 Plan, 2,048 TLDs each have a 2+2+4 trusteeship

[Jim Fleming]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> To: IFWP Discussion List <list at ifwp.org>
> Date: Thursday, September 03, 1998 1:11 AM
> Subject: [ifwp] Re: Membership organization
>
>
> >ISOC's leadership has made some terrible and costly mistakes in the past
> two
> >years. My idea was by no means intended to be a vote of support for them
or
> >even for ISOC as it now exists.
> >
> >The point was that it is the only organization with an international
> >membership apparatus in place. If we're serious about a membership
> >organization that is *individually* based, the question of how membership
> is
> >established, verified, votes tallied, etc. becomes extremely important. I
> >think some of us are not thinking about the practical implications of
> >implementing that.
> >
>
>
> I disagree. Some of "us" have been thinking
> about this for a long time. In my particular
> case, the IPv8 Plan is the structure that I am
> assuming will handle most of the needs in this
> area. The IPv8 Plan is based on individuals
> that join small trusteeships which I call 2+2+4
> because 2 of the people rise to the leadership
> roles, they each have a back-up and then there
> are 4 people that help to fill out the group for
> continuity and eventual rise to leadership roles.
>
> In the IPv8 Plan, 2,048 TLDs each have a
> 2+2+4 trusteeship. That is 16,000+ people.
> Those 16,000 people are organized into 8
> regions with 256 TLDs in each region. The
> regions are a mix of geocentric TLDs and
> generic TLDs. People can be a trustee of a
> TLD and not have anything to do with the
> registry or registrar operations. The trustees
> determine what companies get to do those
> jobs. The trustees represent the people.
> They are like a mini-IANA for each of the
> TLDs.
>
> With 8 regions, there can be some simple
> process for having 2 delegates from each
> region to be selected to work periodically
> in a 16 person global round table to deal
> with any global issues that should be rare.
> The idea is to encourage problems to be
> solved inside each region and local to what
> is affectionately called a "neighbor net". That
> is simply the sum of one trusteeship and
> the two trusteeships on either side of the
> TLD. Various schemes can be worked out.
> Some might prefer that the 2+2 part of the
> center trusteeship be joined by the 2 leaders
> from the neighboring trusteeships when
> problems can not be solved inside of a
> TLD trusteeship.
>
> As an example, recently people were
> debating some issues with the .PL TLD
> for Poland. In the IPv8 Plan the trusteeship
> for the .PL TLD would try to resolve the
> problem. If they can not, then they could
> ask for help from the .SALT and .ROME
> TLD trustees. If necessary, maybe the
> .GR and .CANVAS trustees would be
> asked to help.
>
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
>
> 3:174     GR   (GREECE)
> 3:175     SALT
> 3:176     PL   (POLAND) <---------- Dispute
> 3:177     ROME
> 3:178     CANVAS
>
> All the IPv8 Plan takes is an agreement that
> TLDs are a public resource that should have
> some small number of people acting as
> trustees. Then those trustees can be grouped
> in regions and encouraged to organize
> themselves. People could become trustees
> of as many TLDs that will allow them to join.
>
> By building upon individual people and using
> the TLDs as focal points for trusteeships then
> we can have a structure that allows many people
> to participate, is immune from capture and
> encourages people to think global but act local.
>
>
> Jim Fleming
> Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com
>
>