Posted Jun 21, 2012 9:50 UTC (Thu) by copsewood (subscriber, #199)
Parent article: ICANN adds new gTLDs
I don't think anyone seriously wanted to fix something that wasn't broken until it was. I think now that by polluting the global namespace making brand and phishing protection near impossible, ICANN have made decisions which break things. The ITU would never have allowed the equivalent to occur in connection with international telephony dialling codes which they oversee.
Politically the current arrangement was never going to hold indefinitely anyway, because the idea that non US national governments must treat a company under California law as having diplomatic peer status was never going to be considered acceptable international relations. Once enough of those politically sensitive to the state of Internet governance become technically aware of the alternate root option and its potential for fragmentation, we may as well expect the proposal for ICANN to come under ITU governance to be put onto the diplomatic negotiation table. Once the US wants anything else badly enough at the UN which other countries are persuadable over, but upon which we haven't yet made up our minds, we may well see the status of ICANN changing.
As to fragmentation of the root, I think we're likely to see that anyway, because the more technically cautious resolver administrators will be wary of resolving names within allegedly criminally-managed TLDs and the more TLDs exist, the greater the probability that one or more of these will be criminally managed. Email admins already fragment the Net to a certain extent, by greylisting emails from parts of the net based upon assumptions and measurements concerning the probability of abuse coming from various quarters.