[ncdnhc-discuss] Decentalization proposal for ICANN Evolution and Reform

[Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM]

Dear Dave,

in following the thread about decentralization, the question that remains
for me is: if you decentralized (eg making address, protocol, and names
issues separate, or controlling TLDs regionally), what would be the nature
of the agency or body that kept things coordinated?

One guess: international, private-sector or private-public partnership,
bottom-up, consensus-based... Heard it before?

Personally I remain open to the idea of decentralization (as you say, it
is an appealing word), and even more open to carrying the idea through
consequently to see if and how it is really viable).

Yours,

Alx


.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5550-8405
http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
*
** 10 Aniversario de Internet Society - www.inet2002.org en Washington, DC
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
 Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .



On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 05:54 AM 4/4/2002 -0500, James Love wrote:
> >This is a specific proposal for ICANN decentralization.
>
> Given a goal of decentralization, Jamie's proposal does not go far
> enough.  Any effort at decentralization needs to be more complete.
>
> There are two assumptions behind Jamie's proposal:
>
>          a) it is better to have more localized control of TLDs, and
>
>          b) coordination among multiple TLD-granting organizations is easy.
>
> However a regional body has the difficulty of needing to obtain agreements
> among the member countries each of which has its own culture and its own
> sovereignty.  The idea of requiring a single set of rules for Japan,
> Myanmar and India, for example, strikes me as no easier than having a
> single set of TLD-allocation rules for the entire world, as we have with
> ICANN.
>
> Consequently, I suggest that we have one TLD-granting organization for each
> country.  Each organization will apply whatever policies they wish, from
> the perspective of their country.
>
> This leaves the trivial task of coordinating uniqueness among the
> TLD-granting organizations.
>
> Only two questions are unanswered:
>
> 1.  What is the actual benefit of such decentralization?  Although
> decentralization is an appealing concept, it is not clear what specific
> benefits are expected in this case.  It is even less clear what specific
> benefits are likely.  Perhaps there are examples of global decentralization
> for such an operation?  That way we could understand the benefits and the
> difficulties.
>
> 2.  Will coordination of uniqueness actually be that trivial?  For example,
> what will prevent a TLD land-grab by the different granting agencies,
> instantly adding thousands -- or even millions -- of TLDs to the root.
> Although some DNS technicians believe that millions of new TLDs in the root
> will not cause a problem, others believe it will.  And what about disputes
> between the different granting agencies?
>
> d/
>
> ----------
> Dave Crocker <mailto:dave at tribalwise.com>
> TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>