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

Fri May 3 23:41:13 CEST 2002

James,

I'm retaking this note of yours which went unread amidst the flood;
apologies.

In the present system and starting from your hypothesis: if a given
national government starts a registry it's still got to get it referenced
in a way that guarantees uniqueness. That's the point where coordination
becomes necessary: to put its data into the root.

Given the global reach of the Internet, some operations of that registry
will have broad impact and may be challenged. The level of this
impact/challenge may vary widely and require or not other levels of
central coordination.

National authority may not be all the story for such a registry.

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 Thu, 2 May 2002, 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?   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.    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).  Is it conceivable (from a practical point of view)
> that the ICANN board will seek to coordinate policy on new TLDS, not manage
> even minor details of the global registry business, as it does now.     I'm
> shouting, but what will it take to have a good faith conversation about
> this?
>
>   Jamie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM" <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
> To: "James Love" <james.love at cptech.org>
> Cc: "NCDNHC-discuss list" <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 11:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Internet is global=we need central planning
>
>
> > James,
> >
> > I am saying that there has to be central coordination to ensure uniqueness
> > of identifiers, and policies to ensure stability (you don't want a sudden
> > void to appear in namespace). That makes it very hard for, say, a govt to
> > go on its own establishing a gTLD, without some agreements as to how it
> > will operate. You can maybe envision an ICANN-less world, in which these
> > agreements are made on a peer-to-peer basis, but I find it unrealistic for
> > this to occur without a forum where all registries can come together. And
> > I would be surprised if you agreed for these decisions to be made in a
> > registry-only closed organization. Which brings in the registrars,
> > businesses, users, etc., and those with an opinion, like academics,
> > consumer organizations, etc. Your title here "Internet is global" does
> > have far reaching consequences; a locally generated TLD would be like a
> > ccTLD, with responsibilities for those within the country and those
> > outside (it is meant for location of the country's resources by outsiders
> > as much as by locals, isn't it?).
> >
> > All this implies a level of central coordination, not central planning. I
> > find your subject line misleading in this sense.
> >
> > Yours,
> >
> > 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 Wed, 1 May 2002, James Love wrote:
> >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM" <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > >      Alejandro, are you saying there is no realistic alternative to
> having
> > > the ICANN board choose who gets TLDs, telling registry operators what
> names
> > > they can and cannot use, telling them what business models to follow,
> and
> > > what prices to charge?  And that none of this can be done by national
> > > governments or regional bodies?    And *all* of these decisions have to
> be
> > > made by a single centralized body?    I am quite willing to have *some*
> TLD
> > > policies be made globally.  But I don't see the basis for saying *all*
> TLD
> > > decisons have to be made by the ICANN board.
> > >
> > >   Jamie
> > >
> > > --------------------------------
> > > James Love mailto:james.love at cptech.org
> > > http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>