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

[Kent Crispin]

On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:04:24AM -0400, James Love wrote:
> Alejandro,  I have conceded the uniqueness issue a million times on this
> list, and in our formal comments.  The fact that you responded as if I
> didn't see a role for ICANN on this issue means to me that you are paying
> zero attention.   I'm astonished, really, that we have having this
> conversation.   For the billionth time, I concede ICANN needs to make *SOME*
> decisions.  Lets repeat, *SOME* decisions.  Uniqueness, UDRP, whois,
> whatever.  Is THIS CLEAR?   What I am asking is does ICANN have to make
> EVERY DECISION, or can some of this be decentralized?

ICANN doesn't make every decision.  In fact, almost *all* decision
making in the area of ICANN's core responsibilities (DNS, address
allocation, and protocol registries) is de-centralized -- most of the
decision making actually occurs in businesses, ISPs, registries, and so
on.  And, while you don't recognize it as such, every one of the
decisions made by ICANN have actually been the result of a process that
has been going on for years -- the DNSO is only the latest in a series. 

>  Can my own
> government, or the French government, or the Mexican government, authorize
> some local business or non-profit to run a registry, subject to the registry
> meeting whatever GLOBAL coordination that is TRULY NEEDED at the ICANN
> level.

Suppose the Mexican Government and the French Government both decide to
authorize a registry for the same TLD name? Ultimately, there must be a
decision about which registry gets the name, since only one can get it. 
Whatever the decision process is, it must be one that all countries
agree to, which necessarily implies that the decision process, whatever
it may be, will involve a significant amount of bureaucratric protocol. 

It is absolutely inevitable that any shared global resource of any
significant human value will be surrounded by a significant amount of
human process.  Currently, that process in the case of the shared global
resource called the "root zone" is centered around ICANN.  If ICANN goes
away it will be replaced by something else of the same order of
complexity -- probably more complexity, because (though you fail to
recognize this) ICANN really has very limited resources.

>  Could the DNSO set up REGIONAL bodies to authorize new TLDS, so
> the ICANN board only has to deal with GLOBAL coordination issues (like is
> done now for numbering).

Suppose that two regional bodies authorize the same name? You simply
cannot avoid the fact that the decision ultimately rests at the central
coordinating point.  And humans who want decisions to go their way will 
put pressure on that central coordinating point, which therefore must 
be strong enough to withstand that pressure.

This last point is very important in understanding how DNS politics has 
evolved, incidentally:  people seek to have decisions made in their 
favor, and in a hierarchical structure, this means that they will run 
right up the chain to the top.

> Is it conceivable (from a practical point of view)
> that the ICANN board will seek to coordinate policy on new TLDS,

That is precisely what it is trying to do.  

> not manage
> even minor details of the global registry business, as it does now.

No, it doesn't do that now.  ICANN manages the things it does because of
EXTERNAL demand, not internal demand.  The reason we have a UDRP is
because of the demands of the TM interests, not because the ICANN staff
somehow just thought it was a good idea.  The reason we have the
registry/registry model is because there was demand to try to control
the NSI monopoly, etc etc. 

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
Technical Support Manager, ICANN            lonesome."
crispin at icann.org,kent at songbird.com                    -- Mark Twain