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

[James Love]

I think we can summarize Dave Crocker's strategy here as:

1. Unless you can spell out every single detail one could possibly imagine,
nothing you say should be considered ready for debate.

I also think it's time to abandon this strategy.....    Clearly if one
wanted to decentralize all sorts of decision making on TLDs, it could be
done, and clearly resolving disputes over uniqueness of strings can be done
a thousand different ways, if anyone really wanted to.  This sort of bad
faith stuff does not reflect well on the defenders of the ICANN status
quo.....  it sounds like, we don't want to defend the merits of centralized
decision making, we'll just assert that it is the only system that works.
Defying of course any common sense of how the real world functions.

More interesting for me would be to see different models for
decentralization, and examine the benefits and problems that each system
would offer.

  Jamie


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
To: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin at law.miami.edu>
Cc: "Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM" <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>; "James
Love" <james.love at cptech.org>; "NCDNHC-discuss list" <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Internet is global=we need central planning


> At 03:42 AM 5/2/2002 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
wrote:
> >On Wed, 1 May 2002, Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> Michael, when someone calls for a change, they have a responsibility to
> provide details that show the efficacy of the change.  It is not
reasonable
> to call for a change, provide no implementation detail, and then demand of
> others that they demonstrate why the change is not appropriate or
feasible.
>
> So if you are going to claim that it is appropriate to change an
> operational and administrative model that has been successful since the
> inception of the DNS, more than 15 years ago, the burden is on YOU to
> provide documentation concerning feasibility and efficacy.
>
> It is no wonder that you are disinclined to provide such detail, given the
> absence of any real-world, comparable examples to demonstrate the
> feasibility and efficacy of your proposal.
>
>
> >As far as I can tell, the only functions that require centralization are
> >...
> >3. setting in motion the processes by which other bodies will choose the
> >gTLDs;
>
> You need to specify in detail how those "other bodies" would achieve
> allocations that do not collide with each other and how this would be
> superior to the current model.  That specification needs to attend to
> disputes about allocations.
>
>
> >1 is easy.
> >
> >2 becomes much easier if one accepts that ICANN should look only at the
> >engineering issues.
>
> Most things are easier if one ignores the hard parts.
>
> Technical administration and operations is a hard problem on a global
> scale.  When you start attending to that reality, discussion about
> proposals will have some grounding in reality.
>
>
> >   But after three years, and in the face of some
> >fairly strong consensus that if there's a technical limit it is very
high,
>
> This is a good example of trivializing the topic.  The maximum number of
> TLDs that can be supported in the root servers is only one of several
> issues concerning limits.  That there is consensus among DNS experts that
> that physical limit is high -- and there is far less consensus about just
> how high -- is fine, but not nearly sufficient.
>
> This topic has been explicated many times over the last few years.  Before
> asserting a simplistic truth about this, please familiarize yourself with
> the broader range of issues affecting DNS operational limits.
>
>
> >I think the burden is quite clearly on those who would leave the limit a
7
> >every three years.
>
> There is no such group.  Please do not invent groups and positions to
> oppose.  It does not facilitate understanding or progress.
>
>
> >And, if it needs saying, the idea the ICANN has security
> >*responsibilities* is a total non-starter.
>
> The idea that you can assert an absolute over a topic with which you
> demonstrate far too little understanding is an even better non-starter.
>
> Again, the range of issues involving DNS security has been discussed at
> length. Please familiarize yourself with those discussions and try to
> provide specific, informed comment rather than simplistic, broad dicta.
>
>
> >   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.
>
> You really need to stop projecting psychological assessments of yourself
> onto others.
>
> d/
>
> ----------
> Dave Crocker <mailto:dave at tribalwise.com>
> TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>