User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Time to consider change of ICANN governance

Time to consider change of ICANN governance

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.


(Log in to post comments)

Time to consider change of ICANN governance

Posted Jun 21, 2012 11:48 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

Yes, I can see that before too long, over-cautious administrators will block DNS lookups of names that aren't in the long-established TLDs like .com, .net and .(ISO country code). That will lead to the establishment of a mirror domain such that X.mirrordns.com resolves to the same as X.

Time to consider change of ICANN governance

Posted Jun 21, 2012 12:06 UTC (Thu) by gioele (subscriber, #61675) [Link]

> Yes, I can see that before too long, over-cautious administrators will block DNS lookups of names that aren't in the long-established TLDs like .com, .net and .(ISO country code). That will lead to the establishment of a mirror domain such that X.mirrordns.com resolves to the same as X.

My fear is that these administrators will block the lookup of every non-traditional TLDs *except* .google, .apple, .facebook and .docs. Good luck requesting an exception to another TLD that does not belong to a big brand.

Time to consider change of ICANN governance

Posted Jun 22, 2012 16:05 UTC (Fri) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106) [Link]

If fragmentation is going to happen anyway (seems inevitable, now) we might as well stop pretending that ICANN has some kind of actual monopoly on gTLDs. They only have any kind of authority within the confines of the traditional root servers and anyone is free to use a competing set of roots or even a completely different name resolution system.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds