[icann-eu] Re: [ICANN-EU] ccTLDs to ask for BoD seats?

[t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>]

roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com (Tue 11/28/00 at 06:25 PM +0100):

> What I was saying is that the very moment you open the door to alternate 
> roots outside ICANN's authority you allow the proliferation of "wild roots". 
> You may "hope" that it will never happen, but there's no mechanism to stop 
> it.

with all due respects, this is a bit silly, don't you think?

here's why: 

     (1) 'the' root has never been under ICANN's authority, 
     strictly speaking; any claim that ICANN is needed to
     preserve the integrity of the root is ipso facto false.

     (2) a number of 'wild' roots already exist, and they 
     have yet to introduce any name collisions, afaik. on
     the contrary, there's a better argument to be made that
     ICANN is introducing the collision by approving '.biz'
     (please remember the discussions in MDR about alpha-3
     CC names and 'reserving' '.web').

     (3) ICANN is, as dyson used to like to say and the new
     MAL study call for some reason repeats, powerless. its
     authority stems from the USG and from the actual tech-
     nical stratum (RIRs, ccTLDs, etc.) on which the net
     relies. what exactly would ICANN do to a 'wild root'?
     *sue it*, is what. compare that to what the technical
     stratum would do: ignore it instantly and permanently.

and so on. this conversation about roots is 99.9% theology, imo,
and ICANN is the rough equivalent of an avignon pope.

cheers,
t
--

\|/ ____ \|/ 
@~/ oO \~@    <http://www.tbtf.com/roving_reporter/>
/_( \__/ )_\ 
\_U__/