[ncdnhc-discuss] What about 5 (or more) ICANNs?

[Dave Crocker]

At 12:05 PM 3/5/2002 -0500, James Love wrote:
>Just because something is global does not mean it is a good idea for it to
>be controlled centrally, or by a particular body.

You are correct.  So it is good that no one suggested central control due 
to global scope.  In other words, your response is not related to an issue 
that anyone has raised.

Global scope does have an impact on scaling issues and, therefore, on 
manageability.  Although scaling normally requires decentralization, the 
exception is when that decentralization requires tight coordination.  In 
that case, centralization is better.

However the real reason for centralization is the technical nature of a DNS 
hierarchy.


>concerns the TLD names.  Suppose there were 5 regional ICANNs, each governed
>according to the tastes or preferences of each region.

You are assuming a homogeneity within a region.  Are you claiming that 
India, Myanmar and Japan are homogeneous?  What about Hungaria and Portugal?


d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  (new)fax +1.408.850.1850