[ga] ICANN as a Governing Body

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Hi Jefsey

I'll start by changing the subject heading to align with the thread, if I may.

On Sunday, April 01, 2001 10:19 AM (AEST), Jefsey Morfin wrote:
Subject: Re: ITU and BIND configs (Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract)

On 14:10 29/03/01, Harald Tveit Alvestrand said:
> >as new.net has demonstrated, they WILL conflict, unless one has a
> >governing body that ensures they don't. And if so - what is the improvement?
>
> New.net is obviously a wrong example since they are not at root level. I am
> surprised that the Chirman of the IEFT may use such a ploy to support his
> point. Either your point is good and please use relevant example, or your
> point is not and please do not try to confuse the issues.

I think you are a little unfair to Harald here.  New.Net is a perfectly valid
example as it does use a root zone and has got 18 colliders.  But even if it
didn't, or was otherwise a poor example, Harald's substantive point remains and
must be addressed.  I've tackled it one way already - this is a different
approach.

Harald's point is:  When there are no enforceable rules (such as you might have
in a tightly controlled centraised system) how can you stop people setting up a
new root zone which collides with all the others.   Money talks, bulldust walks.

Unless and until the alternate root people, or their supporters, can develop a
workable and effective solution to that problem then it will continue to be
raised.  And that's fair.  In fact it is the core question to be addressed.

Off the top of my head I can see several possible real-world approaches which,
alone or in combination, could provide a result (if not a solution):

(1)    Technical.  If you look at Alternic's TLD finder (say for ".com" or
".web") who you will see that it queries multiple roots:
http://www.alternic.org/tldfinder.html

This shows that it would be possible to write a browser which will produce a
list of all domain names held by conflicting TLDs in whatever root they reside.
If I had some VC that's exactly what I would do.

There are no doubt other technical solutions including overlaying a directory
over the DNS as is done by Realnames.  I'm sure that will end up being the
solution for multilingual domains.  And I would not discount your comments
(which I haven't studied) on BIND software solutions.

(2)    Competition.  Most tidy minded, well-organised people don't like this
solution.  If is happening in all sorts of industries such as mobile or cell
phones, music recording etc.  That is the competitive shake-out.  This is a true
case of the "last one left standing" (Danny Younger).

(3)    Negotiation, Co-operation.  Although I hold out hopes for (1), this is my
favoured approach.  It is what ICANN should be doing and isn't.

(4)    Regulation.  The final solution is one that's lying in wait for us.  It's
what we might consider as the "brute force approach".  Any government will give
us a chance but sooner or later they'll get criticised by THEIR constituency,
the voters.  Examples easily spring to mind but the most obvious is the
Australian government's decision to ban online internet gambling.

Why did they do that, you ask?  Well, all I can say is you have to understand
the realpolitik (I hope that's the right word) in Australia.  That starts with a
genuine understanding of the Australian Constitution, the taxation system and
the balancing of multiple opposing forces.  I am not kidding when I say it was
an almost inevitable move.  And one not easy to revoke -- now or later.

You think it's just IP?  Of course not.  Gambling, alcohol, pornography, drugs,
are all likely contenders for Government regulation.  Those who have proposed a
classification system for websites are just in advance of the times.  It will
happen, sooner or later.  Sorry -- make that "it's already happening".

All it needs now is for the ACCC (Australian regulator) to mark ICANN's card as
a monopoly and the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.  In an extreme
case it could mean the end of the whole cosy setup from the Board down to the
DNSO constituencies.  That's a small dark cloud on the far horizon.

And anybody who doesn't appreciate the danger needs to look closely at the
nearest "funny farm" because I'd question their capacity for logical thought.
For those who are better informed I'd recommend attending a few courses on risk
management.   Many in the IT industry are familiar with these concepts.

I am confident that what we do here, today, in the General Assembly, will stamp
out the future for Eric Dierker's children and my yet-to-be-born granchildren.

Sincerely
Patrick Corliss



--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html