Re: [ICANN-EU] IPv6, was: re-chartering this list: draft.

["Griffini Giorgio" <grunz@tin.it>]

Andy wrote:

> >The problems we face now with the DNS
> >system are nearly 100% externally caused (mostly by a mix of bad
> >court decisions and legal theories and bad administrative practice),
> >and we can create new TLDs until we are blue in the face, these
> >problems won't go away.
>
> Objection. I agree about the reasons for the current problems,
> but not, that new TLDīs couldnīt solve any problems. I could
> imagine that new TLDīs take place under there own rules,
> policies and legal theories. So, next to the (not so new) idea
> of a TLD ".TM" for the trademark-owners, i could imagine
> ".GPL" for everything under gnu public-license. We could even
> expand these to cultural and religious spaces, like ".ISLAM"
> (btw, they have no copyright & patent-laws ;), ".catholic"
> for everything under Catholic policy and so on.
>

New TLDs are just a way to enlarge the available name space. They will not
solve the major issues on DNS that is 'uniqueness' of reference.
In fact while in the real world we may anyway live having other people around
with our own name because in the real world this issue is solved by letting
identify any of us by many other details in the DNS system there is currently
no such way (for a sld) other than change the TLD you are on.
This fact, if mutuated to real world, would mean we will will have to add a new
different phone directory book in any case we find two people with the same
name. Sure, it may work for a little just and until we have not too many book
to search on or phisical space to collect them. (the word 'search'  is being
used in a too much 'kind' way here considering we are talking about DNS
queries).
The real problem is that new TLDs are being seen a big business 'now' rather
than a 'problem' a little quickly later

> Planet earth is big and I donīt see any reason for putting
> american policies and/or centralised ICANN decisions on the
> whole cultural and economic space internet.
>
> So, for it might be quiete difficult, to break up the rules
> on the current TLD`s, it might be a good way to create some
> new ones under those policies and so show up alternatives.
>
The only reason I _may_ see to introduce new TLDs is just to allow
to replicate on DNS the 'category' structure of trademarks because by
definition 'trademarks' are being allocated as unique within their categories.
While we may almost mechanically translate 'categories' in a corresponding
new TLD we cannot do the same for 'non trademark' uses and I don't think
quite technically reasonable to have thousands of root servers for trying to
'categorize' something that is 'by its nature'  chaotic.

> >Another example is Jeanette's ideas abou how standardization
> >works. Lutz very early made the point that the authority of
> >organizations like ICANN derive from the technical quality
> >of their results. Bad standards are not accepted in the market.
> >Again Jeanette disagreed, somehow, with some fluff remarks
> >on the influence of techs, without that I really
> >understood her counterposition.
>
> I thought you did agree, that the current TLD / namespace
> handling courtdecisions vs. UDRP/WIPO stuff is bullshit,
> but it is accepted in the market. So I have to disagree:
> just because a standard is bad, it doesnīt mean it is not
> accepted in the market.
>
I agree that the market is not so clever in choosing standards but this is a
concept we place because often we judge such choice in a way different the
market did. This happen in many fields where even an outstanding 'technical
solution' may be disregarded by the market in favor of a sub-optimal one by
the bare technical point of view respect to other issues that the 'market ' is
more sensible to (quick availability, ease of use etc..)
Anyway, once the market make a choice, even if it turns to be clearly wrong,
it is very conservative about it and this is currently happening with DNS
system that the 'market' is using as a real world 'identifing' tool despite DNS
doesn't have knobs to handle 'non-uniqueness' of reference.
This 'conservativeness' explain such 'pressure' for new TLDs instead of
approaching the key issue of 'uniqueness'.

About UDRP I think that it is not wrong in itself if we talk about concerns
targeted and rules to have these concerns solved. The problem is , currently,
that there is no 'quality control' on decision made by arbitrators and if such
miss will remain in the short-medium term we will suffer of same problems
we may have for example in a factory plant production line where an
unattended machine begin to produce malformed goods due to a fault and no
one is checking result quality. More time passes, the more unusable goods
will be produced. And no one is satified with such produced goods.

Best regards
Giorgio Griffini