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

[James Love]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
To: "James Love" <james.love at cptech.org>
Cc: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin at law.miami.edu>;
"NCDNHC-discuss list" <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Internet is global=we need central planning


> At 03:13 PM 5/3/2002 -0400, James Love wrote:
> >    I have a lot of respect for people who can figure out the details,
>
> James, then please explain why you so forcefully reject responses from
such
> folk when you do not like the response.

    Which such folk?  You appear completely unable to figure out how to
undertake any centralization of ICANN's decision making.  If you could make
some constructive suggestions in this regard, I would be impressed.

> Instead you ignore the request and pretend that the details are not
> important to the adoption of a major change to DNS administration.
>
>
> >from first come first service to UDRP type
> >ADRs, to systems that blocked dictionary names but not none dictionary
> >names,
>
> That you would suggest that this is a viable alternatives shows just how
> simplistic a model you are working with.  It utterly ignores real-world
> implications that make such an alternative useful only as an academic
exercise.

    Wow, thanks for the critique.  THAT was useful.

> >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),
>
> What is the advantage of "regional" DNSO's?  What is there in the history
> of the current DNSO that provides any basis for believing that it and its
> clones could work successfully.

     There are several adavantages of a regional DNSO approach.

1.    The first one is to avoid the typical problems of monopoly, of
monoculture, of single point of failure, of too little innovation.  If there
are more than one body doing something, you learn from the diversity.  Some
will make one kind of mistake, others will make other mistakes, and everyone
will learn from those mistakes, but also from the various successes.

2.    The second is that as regional DNSOs become somewhat powerful, they
become a countervailing force to the global ICANN.  This is what is saving
the ASO.  It has real regional policy making bodies that are not about to be
bullied by ICANN.

3.  The third is that multiple DNSOs change the incentive structure.  A
single DNSO can rationalize slothful or anticompetitive behavior, because
the incumbents typically benefit from this.  This is ICANN today, taking
care of the Verisign, the ccTLDs, etc., preventing non-profits or industry
trade associations from running their own TLDs.... But with several regional
DNSO, if you sit on your hands, your locals cannot innovate while the rest
of the world can.  The regional DNSO has an incentive to move ahead, or
watch others move.

4.  The fourth is that consumers/users can pick the regional regulatory
approach they like best.  There will be different combinations of protecting
consumer interests, insuring reliablity, etc.   Users can vote with their
registrations.  If Euorpe or Asia get it right, I'll register my domains
there.

Jamie

--------------------------------
James Love mailto:james.love at cptech.org
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040