[AusNOG] So ICANN approved generic TLDs
nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
Wed Jun 22 11:40:26 EST 2011
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:59:05 +1000
Terry Manderson <terry at terrym.net> wrote:
> On 22/06/2011, at 8:47 AM, Daniel Brown wrote:
> > Pretty obvious it's a cash grab with a globalisation agenda, sad day for the
> > internet imho, things like this will just fuel fractures and splinter of the
> > "internet"
> I would suggest that _not_ allowing such recognisable organisations to
> seek and acquire a TLD that they want to call their own would be a more active
> catalyst to the fracturing of the internet namespace. Think alternate roots and DNS
> protocol shifts by using Classes .
I think that is debatable. Alternative roots and DNS protocol shifts
would only get adopted if both the existing DNS system failed/became
unreliable, people choose to use one of the alternatives (and most
people "choose" to use what ever their ISP chooses), and a network
effect occurs. That's a high barrier for success of the alternatives.
The ITU does have governments on it's side, meaning that they can use
laws to mandate their solutions. ICANN need to be very careful about
what they do and how it is perceived, because if it is perceived to not
be interest of governments+, then governments are likely to put the ITU
in charge by laws, because they can.
So even though ICANN may say, "if we didn't do this, somebody else
would", if that is unacceptable to governments, the somebody else may
be put in charge anyway.
I'll admit I don't know the details of the gTLD policy, however
with the cost so high, it would seem that the fundamental control on
this is the cost. This seems to be a fundamental change in the role I
think ICANN have played and should play. In the past they've acted
mostly "for the good of the Internet and it's users/citizens",
although .mobi etc, could be seen to be the start of the slippery
slope. This policy now seems to not be able what is good for the
Internet, but how much money have you got. A non-for-profit inventing
something new to sell, and using intangible and marketing spiel reasons
to justify it such as "unleash the global human imagination", and no
descriptions of the problems this solves with the existing system
suggests to me that they've forgotten their purpose and mandate.
I scares me that when I initially thought about this decision I
briefly though to myself, "maybe it wouldn't be so bad if the ITU were
put in charge".
Sometimes the cure can be worse than the cause (if there is one).
>  http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2009/forum/geneva/Pdfs/WSISForum09-InfraClasses-V0%201%20(2).pdf
> > Most TLS's would be a huge monopoly, .law, .bank, .food, all under the
> > command of a tsar. Bad day of history imho in relation to this.
> really? perhaps reflect on how the monopolisation of .aero, .name et el is going. ;)
> > Isn't IANA the DoC/DoJ?
> IANA, in terms of the function, is currently a zero dollar contract awarded by NTIA, a part of the DoC.
> Do keep in mind that IANA is a function that has a lot of stakeholders, from the IETF, the RIRs, and the Domain name folk
> Recently (feb) the IANA function came up for review,
> (Docket No. 110207099–1099–01)
> and then extended last week:
> (Docket No. 110207099–1319–02)
> Public comments to date can be found here:
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
More information about the AusNOG