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

[Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law]

On Wed, 1 May 2002, Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM wrote:

> James,
> >
> > 1.  Do you believe I am making unrealistic proposals with regard to what can
> > be decentralized, and what I concede might be centralized?
> 
> The degree to which you seem to think that some functions can be
> decentralized appears unrealistic to me. As a prime example, gTLD policy.

**Why** exactly can't this be decentralized?  

As far as I can tell, the only functions that require centralization are

1. keeping the master list to prevent collisions;
2. setting annual quotas for gTLD creation;
3. setting in motion the processes by which other bodies will choose the
gTLDs;
4. (optionally) setting minimum criteria for gTLD operators e.g. adherence
to the UDRP, data escrow, fixed legal location.

1 is easy.

2 becomes much easier if one accepts that ICANN should look only at the
engineering issues. IF there is some number beyond which we shouldn't go,
that imposes constraints.  But after three years, and in the face of some
fairly strong consensus that if there's a technical limit it is very high,
I think the burden is quite clearly on those who would leave the limit a 7
every three years.  ICANN should not engage in the social policies of
protecting incumbents.

3 is hard. But your committee could certainly enunciate principles for
this, which we could then communally debate.  The key is to spread the job
out among very different types of institutions, located in different
places.  And the second key is to imitate Postel's brilliant strategy of
piggybacking on the ISO codes for the ccTLDs.  In each case you should
seek to find a list maintained by someone else for a different purpose.
Eg. if the the goal is to allocate some gTLD creation rights to NGOs, find
a list -- even a very partial one will do -- such as the UN's
accreditation list.  Or concatenate several, e.g. unions, environmental
groups, bodies accredited to international treaty organizations.

The lists need not be perfect, nor need the list of lists be comprehensive
provided that the overall variety is great (and I'd auction off a tld or
two a year too - the market is a very efficient way to allocate scarce
goods).

4. is basically done.  

Incidentally, for the avoidance of doubt, I direct your attention to my
suggestions on how ICANN should function in pages 5-8 of
http://www.gmu.edu/conference/itbiotech/papers/PapFroomkin.pdf

And, if it needs saying, the idea the ICANN has security
*responsibilities* is a total non-starter.  The fact that it has appointed
a committee -- the prime evidence for this responsibility noted in the
staff report-- is evidence of nothing other than desires for grandure.
ICANN might have a role to play encouraging others to develop best
practices and in disseminating them, but it has no legislative or
executive role in security policy.

-- 

[Note: I killfile Cr*cker, Kr*spin, JW*lliams]

		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's cool here.<--