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

Fri May 3 21:19:29 CEST 2002

Hi!

even decisions for ccTLDs are not "not global". A well-accepted document
such as RFC 1591 clearly states that the ccTLDs are run with a
responsibility to the local and the global Internet community.

The talk about decentralization to regional bodies need specify a lot
better what is going to be decentralized, to at least make sense.
Remembering again, that coordination is not central planning.

Alejandro Pisanty

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5550-8405
http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
*
** 10 Aniversario de Internet Society - www.inet2002.org en Washington, DC
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
 Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

On Fri, 3 May 2002, James Love wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
> > I do realize just how painful it is to move from general concept to
> > concrete detail for technical details.  Perhaps that difference in our
> > experience explains why I have so much respect for the requirement to
> > provide meaningful detail.  And an understanding of the difference between
> > meaninful detail and "every single detail one could possibly imagine."
>
>    I have a lot of respect for people who can figure out the details, and I
> have confidence that decision makes should know how much detail to focus on
> at any given time.    I could fully specify 18 different ways of resolving
> uniqueness over TLD strings, from first come first service to UDRP type
> ADRs, to systems that blocked dictionary names but not none dictionary
> names, to regional allocations and regional bargaining over contested names,
> to lotteries, and dozens of other approachs, all of which would work, and
> work somewhat differently.     Or, we could have the ICANN board do this for
> each TLD string, plus doing all sorts of other regulatory decisions for all
> new gTLDs that will ever be authorized.
>
>    The decision to move things away from the ICANN board doing this is a
> high level policy issue, which has its own logic.   The choice of the best
> alternative isn't something that one needs to know right off the bat.  This
> would benefit from debate.   To suggest it can only be done by the board is
> nonesense.
>
> My preferred system is to have DNSO 1, the current one, and have new DNSO's
> self organize for regions (such as for example Europe, one possibly for
> spanish speaking countries, one for Africa, one for the Indian subcontient,
> etc), and have the new ones take over the decisions that are not global,
> such as checking out the qualifications of the operator, protecting
> consumers, etc.     The group of DNSOs would then negotiate between each
> other to resolve uniqueness issues, and possibly failing to resolve
> differences between each other, the ICANN board could impose a (least
> restrictive of entry) ADR to resolve disputes.  The ICANN board could also
> insist on minimum policies on UDRP and whois, if it wanted to.
>
> Jamie
>
> --------------------------------
> James Love mailto:james.love at cptech.org
> http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>