Re: [ga] ICANN Launches Latest Consultation on New Top-Level Domains
At 23:14 10/08/2007, GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: [The draft final report comes in two parts. Part A and Part B. Part A http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm Part B http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-partb-01aug07.htm I continue my reading. This text is incredibly biased (with most probably most of its authors not realizing it). This pollutes the debate and hide many good points at the wrong thinking place. Why is that that way? There are three major problems. The most technically pressing is ROAP (Routing and Addressing Problem). The most political one is the new TLDs and particularly the IDN(cc)TLDs. The most strategic one is for ICANN to survive in best adapting to the Tunis agreement. All have in common to result from a wrong "something" in their existing solution and the need for a new adapted environment. There are two proposed "somethings": 1) "building": addressing and routing, IDN definition, ICANN action are too loosely built. Better but wise constraints should save the day. The rationale is that names, addresses, parameters, and now languages belong to everyone. The only international "law" which may apply is decentralized commerce, protected by (limited) centralized regalian authority (the USG involvement is one of the "technical" lucks that permits the Internet) and a single technological space. 2) "understanding": TCP/IP is a limited but well designed technology. It was robust enough to support management mistake up to now, so no one really noticed them. Now, they start being too important and the limitations are showing up. Obviously ICANN, IETF, W3C, IAB, etc. and the report authors never decided "we are going to think wrong". We were not at the beginning since the Internet works. So, it means that we now understand it wrong. How is that possible? The only reason I think of is that we _see_ the Internet wrong. Because time has flown and we did not upgraded our spectacles yet. Humanity spectacles are named "paradigms". This was clearly identified in Tunis. We said, the USG will manage the Internet with ICANN along the legacy paradigm and ICANN, and the IGF will do the same along the "emergent" paradigm and with the enhanced cooperation. Now we have two problems: 1) the definition or the recognition of the new paradigm. 2) the position/survival of ICANN in the enhanced cooperation. I do not want to enter into the discussion of the new paradigm and of the ICANN position. But I know how to recognize the correct new paradigm and the correct position for ICANN: that there is no more "technological" barriers to trade and other kind of relations. So, the Internet constitution is again in the code, not into the USC and ICANN ByLaws any more. ICANN is a son of a Gov. It put itself under business stakeholder protection paying in status-quo. To free itself from both it wants to become a world referent. The "to be to Datacoms what ITU is to Telecoms", coordinating names, numbers, parameters and languages with its "techSO" affiliate formed by IAB/IESG/IETF. Nothing against that, should it fit the expectation of the semantic layer atop I am mainly interested in. The responses to the ROAP, IDN, and IGF positioning issues, probably in the 12 months to come, will decide. |