RE: [icann-europe] European RootServer System

["Andy Duff" <andy@new.net>]

Marc Schneiders [mailto:marc@schneiders.org] wrote:

> Lots of European languages also need ML domains (or IDN as I think we
> are now supposed to call them) to represent their names: Scandinavian
> languages, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Greek, Dutch. And I am
> sure there are more

Agreed, though there is a greater level of complexity involved in moving
into non-Roman character sets that I was trying to identify. I.E. the issue
becomes much "bigger" when you think of the AP region, but is also more
complex when you think of the language communities that are "smaller" and
exist within the European entity. But this latter group do not necessarily
all require moving outside ASCII (though they obviously do move beyond the
subset of lower case ASCII and therefore into the same group of problems
that are faced with all IDNs). I'm not a technician, so if this is a
distinction that's not worth making let me know.

Re IDN vs ML, it is interesting to note that the ITU's conference in
December used the term ML names rather than IDNs. I think IDN is more often
used when coming from a technical perspective. The briefing papers for that
conference are worth reading if you want to see how the ITU approaches
things. http://www.itu.int/mdns/briefingpaper/itu/index.html

> > In light of these points, I do think it is pertinent and sensible to at
> > least explore this issue, not because multiple technical roots are
> > necessarily desirable, but because they may (particularly in
> the long term)
> > be the most pragmatic and secure way of ensuring
> interoperability of naming
> > systems.
>
> This sounds like newspeak to me.

OK, I see why you are getting at, but I still think it is necessary to
discuss these issues rather than ignore them, and I'm pretty sure you agree.


> > I know that is the perspective of the ITU which is concerned with
> > the pragmatic operation of technical systems within the real world
> > constraints of national interests.
>
> I know very little of the efficiency and speed of the ITU. Do you
> think we will ever see, e.g., a new gTLD if the ITU takes over?

I do actually, yes, if it was in the interests of the members. There is a
lot of FUD spread about the ITU. In reality, it is an organisation which
operates through a mandate specifically given to it by it's members and
carries out only such coordination as the members want it to carry out. That
obviously includes the coordination that is necessary to ensure continued
interoperability of the PSTN. Some think that means it is automatically slow
and inefficient; I'm not sure that that is true, though I admit I (like you)
don't know very much about them. A good place to start would be to get them
involved in a dialogue.

The thing about the ITU is that it operates under a one member one vote
system, which means that

- the power of the big countries (and specifically the US) is not as great
as it is under a privatised policy making structure such as ICANN.
- smaller countries and specifically the developing world have a greater say
in global policy making
- the rigour required to comply with it's charter means that decisions do
sometimes take longer (although the increase in corporate members of the ITU
has made this less of an issue)
- the application of that rigour means that there are less disputes about
the things it does.

The fear of lack of speed if the ITU gets more heavily involved in DNS
governance is intricately linked (at least in my mind) to the dawning
realisation that ICANN has not (and cannot) establish a fair international
system. ICANN was a bold Utopian vision of how "governance" could be
implemented in a privatised manner in cyberspace; unfortunately the theory
behind it's conception is somewhat similar to the theory that had us all
shopping online for everything by 2003.

As the




-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: icann-europe-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: icann-europe-help@lists.fitug.de