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

[Jefsey Morfin]

On 20:49 04/04/02, Karl Auerbach said:
>And IPv6, if it ever gets here, will significantly reduce even those 
>complaints.

I am not sur you cover all the issues here.  is a very restrictive vision 
of the numbering plan which could be extedned to  X121 and to radio 
frequencies for example.

>  A. An IP address allocation policy body.  The RIRs would still exist
>     under this body.  Funding would come from the RIRs.

OK. Two clercks doing many other things? Maintaining the ISO 3166 list?

>  B. An essentially clerical body to do the non-discretionary parts of
>     IANA.  This would be funded by those who use it, primarily the IETF.
>     No need for public participation here.

Interested in knowing what this is.

>  C. A body to administer a DNS root zone file and to either manage or
>     operate (or both) the collection of root servers for that zone file.

Managing a root server galaxy is not IANA. Yet managing the USG root server 
galaxy is a mission whch could subsidize the ICANN and show the path to the 
other regional organizations. ICANN could act as a secretariat for the Root 
Server System Operators group. Something clear and easy to understand.

>  D. A DNS policy body.  This is where the trouble would continue to exist.
>     But at least it would be in a smaller, and less expensive, container.

One/Two person to register the new network names (TLD). Maybe they could 
use their spare time in maintaining the three letters part of the ISO 3166.

>By-the-way, when drawing the line as to what is technical and what is
>policy, I have suggested the following metric:
>   A matter is "technical coordination" of the Internet if:
>   - A wrong decision has an immediate and direct impact on the
>     ability of the Internet to deliver its fundamental service, i.e.
>     the end-to-end transport of IP packets.

This is a good metric. Any objection?

Execpt that the fundamental service of the Intenet is to make sure JDRP 
stay retained :-)


>the Dept of Commerce, which itself has now power to regulate trademarks,
>has any authority to empower a private body to do the job that it can not.

DNs are like red paiting or the shadow of a car. They tell the car (the 
site) is here. Only the ACPA permits to sell the paint or the shadows 
without the car. Let correct that oddity and we have no more problem. The 
TM issues are related to the domain (the site, the content, etc...) not 
with the network sign pointing to that domain.
jfc