Re: [ga] Question about Making Choices

[Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Brandon C.S. Sanders wrote:
> In http://dnspolicy.org:4080/index.php?n=MakingChoices.FinalThoughts
>
> Elliot and Ross say:
>
> ICANN should no longer seek to "optimize" the namespace as it has 
> attempted to do under its "Sponsored TLD" programs. 
...
> I don't understand what this is saying.  What does optimize the 
> namespace mean?

It means that ICANN should keep its greasy fingers out of the business 
ideas of those folks who want to set up a TLD.  In other words ICANN 
should blind itself to any matter that is not clearly and directly 
linked to the technical stability of DNS as measured by the ability of 
the upper tier of DNS resolvers to efficiently and accurately transform 
DNS queries into DNS responses without prejudice for or against any 
query source and without data mining.

Not only is it wrong for ICANN to insist on evaluating TLDs on the basis 
of subjective criteria not at all related to technical needs, and with a 
clear agenda to placate the trademark industry, but it is also 
potentially a combination in restraint of trade that may fall on the 
wrong side of the line in some countries.

And perhaps most important of all - ICANN's attention to business 
concerns in TLDs has left the actual stability of DNS hanging in the air 
like Wylie Cayote (before he notices that the law of gravity still 
works.)  Today we are using an internet that is only solid and robust by 
virtue of luck.  Nobody is obligated to ensure that the upper tiers of 
DNS are operated well or have the means to recover after a disaster.

We allowed ICANN to be created because we needed a fire department to 
ensure that DNS didn't burn down.  What we got instead was a group that 
hasn't a single fire engine or hose, or even a set of fire codes.

So far the net (and ICANN) have been lucky.  But do we really want the 
technical stability of the net to continue to depend on sheer luck?

		--karl--