[ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN Reform: Role of ITU

[Dave Crocker]

At 07:18 PM 4/30/2002 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > 1.  The hierarchical nature of the DNS requires a single, logical control
> > over allocation/assignment policy.
> >
>
>The above statement is a total falsehood and self-evidently wrong as it
>is trivial to design systems that preserve the uniqueness of TLDs.

Michael,

Please specify a means of ensuring uniqueness that does not involve a 
"single logical control" mechanism.  Since you are so sure that this task 
is trivial, it won't take you much effort to provide it.

Perhaps you do, in fact, have experience designing such mechanisms 
successfully.  My own experience is that the task is very far from trivial, 
so it will be quite enlightening to see you move from touting a general 
idea, instead providing the detail that makes the idea real and practical.


>Preserving uniqueness is a bookkeeping job.

As long as there is a single, logical control, perhaps that is true.  As 
soon as control is "devolved" as you are suggesting, then uniqueness is 
rather more difficult.

I suspect that you are not actually suggesting what you are saying but, 
rather, that you want a simpler mechanism at the core.  You will find, 
however, that as you try to flesh out the details of your proposal, you 
will not wind up with anything that is simpler, more efficient, or more fair.

Feel free to try.  Please remember, however, that it is far easier to claim 
superiority of concepts than it is of details.


>   It's important, but need have
>no other function attached to it - certainly not deciding on the semantic
>contect of the TLD, or even who gets it, once basic assignment mechanisms
>are in place.  The issue is not 'design' but political will, or lack there

1.  "Semantic content of the TLD"?  What is the 'semantic' content of COM, 
or INFO or INT?  Who do you believe defined the semantics and/or enforces it?

2.  Two regions want the same TLD.  What decides the allocation?  Please 
formulate your answer carefully, since you are claiming that this is all 
simpler and more fair than the current structure.

3.  Within a region there is contention over who gets a new TLD.  How is 
that resolved?  What makes that resolution mechanism simpler, more 
efficient, or more fair than the current ICANN operation?


>Here are simplistic models to illustrate this point.  Moving from the
>baby-talk to real life is left as an exercise for readers.

Well, no.  You are the one claiming superiority of the approach.

Moving from baby talk to real life is therefore your responsibility, 
assuming that you actually believe there is superiority in the approach you 
are proposing.  The burden on you is particularly strong given that the 
operational history of the net, so far, has not demonstrated any scheme 
equivalent to the style and scale you are proposing.


>Alice gets five TLDs a year that start with 'a' so long as they are not
>yet in the root.
>
>Bob gets five that start with 'b'.
>
>Charles gets five that start with 'c'.
>etc.

Who or what decides who gets what?

How is that decision process not a "single, logical control"?


>Model Two:

It appears that you are illustrating a number of examples of rule-based 
allocations schemes.  They require that everyone subscribe to the same set 
of rules.

Hence the rules constitute a "single, logical control" mechanism.

(I suspect you had not read my original language very carefully, since it 
appears that you are simply providing examples that prove my point, even 
though you are claiming otherwise.)


>ICANN monitors to enforce uniqueness.

Hmmm.  That makes ICANN the enforcement mechanism for a single, logical 
control, just like it is now.  All you have changed is the particular 
algorithm.


> > 2.  The ability to reach consensus about things is not much better at the
> > regional level than it is at the global level.  For one thing, the
>
>We don't need to worry about this - local/regional/functional is easier
>than global, and if power is devolved in sufficiently diverse ways, you
>get competition to act sensibly,

There appears to be an act of religious faith involved in your 
explanation.  Hence the "we don't need to worry about this" phrase suggests 
that trying to understand how things will work, BEFORE making the change, 
is somehow not required.

Please describe whatever sort of "competition" you think will happen and 
why it will happen any better at a regional level than at a global level?


> > construct of a "region" is often quite artificial.  For another, 
> members of
>
>(Didn't stop ICANN from doing it for voting purposes.)

Yeah.  And that worked real well, didn't it?  We didn't get any sort of 
grossly distorted results, did we?


>  Any time you lump
>people you are in the realm of the artificial.  Indeed, the Internet is,
>the last time I checked, somewhat artificial.  That's life in modernity.
>We do the best we can.  It is still better than a single point of
>gridlock.

Not if the only result is a larger number of points of gridlock.  Making 
these processes work is not magically assured by religious faith in 
devolution.  What makes such things work is a deep understanding of the 
basis for the change.  You have, so far, not provided more than the 
top-level suggestion, with no disclosure of that deeper understanding to 
drive the details.


> > a region often have widely disparate needs and goals.  Again, any proposal
> > for devolution and sharing of power needs to attend to this core fact 
> of life.
> >
>
>OK, so let's start by giving every country one new TLD of its choice, as a
>short of hors derves to do whatever it wants with (including selling it).
>Subject only to FCFS.

And the purpose behind giving countries a second TLD to play with is what, 
exactly?

>And let's cut ICANN up:

For what purpose?  Why is it better to create multiple bureaucracies?

>Note: I had until recently killfiled Dave Crocker.  This post reminds me
>why I did it.  And I think, after this, I'll put him back.  A response
>below.  I won't respond to further messages from him, because I won't read
>them.

Note:  Michael has made a point of touting his killfile choice.  Very 
professional behavior.  Why is he is so reticent to engage is discussion 
with someone who disagrees with him.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dave at tribalwise.com>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850