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

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>]

t byfield wrote:

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

With all due respect, not at all.

>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.

I don't see the correlation between the premise and the consequence.
The fact that USG has maintained so far formal authority (that it plans to 
xfer to ICANN, BTW) does not mean at all that the integrity of the root 
should not be maintained.

>
>      (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').

Indeed, a number of "wild" roots exist, but the impact thereof is close to 
zero. OTOH, supposing that some ccTLDs will create a new root, the impact 
will be immediately considerable, therefore the amount of money involved 
will be enough motivation for market forces to start acting.
In practical terms, until there's only one (meaningful) root, everybody will 
think twice before starting a new one. Once you have two, more roots will 
mushroom.

>
>      (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.
>

I agree that ICANN will be powerless vs. a wild root. I doubt it will "sue 
it": it will probably just do nothing.
But I confess I don't understand the second part of the reasonment.
It is true that the "technical stratum (i.e. RIRs, ccTLDs, etc.)" could 
ignore the wild root, but was not this thread about the possibility (that I 
do not believe, BTW) that ccTLDs would have started a root in first place? 
So if they start it, why should they ignore it?

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

It is indeed about difference of opinions about how the root system should 
work. You are free to call it "theology".
Anyway, I am curious to know how the move to Avignon of the popes is 
connected with theology, but I am glad to realize that you recognize to 
ICANN the authority of an Avignon Pope (which is exactly equivalent to the 
authority of the Vatican Popes).

Regards
Roberto


_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com