[ncdnhc-discuss] Internet is global=we need central planning

[James Love]

Maybe Dave Crocker is right.  Maybe the entire world has never figured out
how to coordinate any global allocation decisions without a single global
body making *all* of the decisions.   On the other hand, maybe Dave Crocker
is blind to the world around him, which has functioned for a long time
without such global central planning agencies.  Maybe he can't see the
connection between the world outside of ICANN and the world that ICANN wants
to create.   My advice is "wake up."  If ICANN can identify some stuff that
requires global decision making by a single body, the burden should be on
ICANN to say what it is.  And ICANN should allow local decision making when
the issues do not require global policy making.  We already have more than
100 ccTLDS that are not regulated by ICANN.  If ICANN disappeared tomorrow,
no one would notice.   If ICANN wants to find a place to be useful, it needs
to be more modest about what it insists of doing.  It could play a role in
doing some of the TLD coordination.   It shouldn't be czar of all TLD
decisions.  If ICANN can't share power, maybe ICANN should be killed, and we
should find a body that doesn't have to be the ultimate galaxy wide god of
all decisions.   I shouldn't have to explain to the ICANN staff or Dave
Crocker why it is feasible to make decisions locally, and coordinate
minimalist globally.   Pick up a phone a dial a phone number.  It works,
globally.    IP numbers are assigned by regional bodies.  ccTLDs deal with
national governments.  ISOC has local chapters.  Someone somewhere must have
the brains to draw the line between local and global decision making.

Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
To: "James Love" <james.love at cptech.org>
Cc: "NCDNHC-discuss list" <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Internet is global=we need central planning


> At 12:01 PM 5/1/2002 -0400, James Love wrote:
> >       With regard to authorizing new TLDs, there is no compelling reason
to
> >have this entry industry regulated by a single global body,
>
> If you know of an administrative scheme for making assignments that does
> not rely on a single, logical point of control, please provide the
details.
>
> You will be happy to learn that you will probably be instantly awarded a
> PhD in computer science.
>
>
> >  and indeed few
> >precedents to suggest this single global regulator is a good idea.
>
> If you know of successful examples of alternative schemes, for this type
of
> administrative task, please provide them.
>
>
> >Here are a few sections from my ICANN Reform comments on this point:
>
> It is easy to state that one or another change is required.  What is more
> difficult is to explain how those changes are practical and superior.  Not
> surprisingly, you chose to limit yourself to the easy part.
>
> (If you think that comments like #15 represent the required specification
> detail, unfortunately they do not.)
>
> d/
>
> ----------
> Dave Crocker <mailto:dave at tribalwise.com>
> TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850
>
>
>