Open letter to ICANN Board for approval of new gTLD program

[Nicolas Adam]

Still, and keeping in mind that the link between your two last messages
was not clear nor a given, what you quote now and what you quoted then
are (what i take to be, from your reference of them) assertions of
efficient principles: namely that subsidiarity and decentralization work
best for scalability, interoperability, flexibility, et. al.

Now i am not going to dispute that. Nor will, i think, anyone who would
favor gTLD enlargement (but i might be astray on this last assertion and
it is possible that some people like ICANN for it's centralizing
potentialities).

But you were nevertheless implying "harm". And while i do see an
alternative, i do not see harm proceeding from the current
gTLD-enlarging path.  I do not see anything that wouldn't be
fundamentally changed anyhow by the alternative solution you introduce
me to, and i certainly does not see harm being done, irreparable or
otherwise, by a gTLD enlargement.

Just so you know: if you build it, i will come. But in the meantime, is
there actual harm in enlarging it?

Nicolas

On 6/14/2011 8:06 PM, JFC Morfin wrote:
> At 20:30 14/06/2011, Nicolas Adam wrote:
>> Dear JFC
>> Would you care to elaborate instead of asserting stuff peremptorily
>> (and implicitly, and vaguely) please?
>
> I am neither peremptory nor vague. I gave you the RFCs and I_D. The
> ICANN gTLD book is vague and administrative. It deals with
> Intellectual Property, not with Internet Protocols.
>
> I keep explaining that we consensually agreed at IETF the RFCs
> 5890-5895, under Vint Cerf chairmanship, and that IAB published the
> RFC 6055. These RFC exemplify that diversity is supported by
> subsidiarity in the Internet architecture. It means that the largest
> the system is, the weaker are the (de)centralized solutions; and the
> stronger are locally distributed deployments. Supporting 256 ICANN
> constained TLDs can be centralized. Not over priced gTLD sales against
> free root names like ".FRA" I technically documented.
>
> I brought my support to the consensus of the RFCs I quote because they
> imply that the DNS can support an unlimited diversity of TLDs,
> supported by billions of users as a unique virtual root.  At the IUCG
> (iucg at ietf.org) mailing list and site we started documenting the
> resulting architecture.  Then we put it on hold in a responsible
> manner because ICANN was not ready to consider this situation (Vint
> Cerf wanted them to take it over - they did not want). Then IETF
> declined to take care of this is area because it is beyond the IETF
> Internet area. This kept the situation stable a few months more.
>
> But as soon as ICANN starts selling K$ 250 TLDs, they will break the
> market equilibrium. Technology will update quickly and thousands of
> free virtual root names will mushroom. A root name is a TLD by anyone
> for everyone under his/her own terms and conditions. It will take some
> time, but this will be the end of ICANN because ICANN has not prepared
> itself to the change of the Internet Use that it is going to trigger.
>
> Technically no one needs a root server system to use the Internet,
> either by ICANN or open-roots. I dont for years. What users only need
> is a home DNS nameserver and the lists of the TLD/Root Names they want
> to use. This can be entirely free, will bring new services, speed,
> security, reliability and quality. This should have been a progress
> from the onset However, since ICANN did not prepared it, it will be
> initial confusion. ICANN still wants to lead and sell a root file
> while it should be prepared and ready to serve the virtual root system.
>
> jfc