Re: [ICANN-EU] Interview with ICANN director Helmut Schink

[Alexander Svensson <svensson@icannchannel.de>]

Dear Gerhard,

> One of the ways is of course the etablishing and publishing of alternate
> root-servers:
> if the At Large Community (?!) decides to support them instead of dealing
> with an ICANN-Administration, where a user-participation is not really
> intended, maybe the day will come, when the ICANN looks at an growing
> paralell (alternate) universe, that is no more object to their administrating.
> We would so have an ICANN-commercial-Internet-Community on one side and on
> the other an At Large-Net-Citizen-Community from people, that are ruling
> and administrating themselves.
> If things like this are really on the way, the ICANN might take a new look
> on the situation and think, that Users / At Large-Members are worth, to
> have some regards to.

in my view, this (alt.roots) would be the very very last and 
desperate resort if ICANN fails altogether. I recognize that 
the notion of being 'alternative' seems to fascinate many,
but I currently don't see how this really solves any of the 
problems.

First of all, if you have the impression that the
alternative root servers are free from lawyers, trademark
problems and the like, I think the main reason for that is that 
few people/companies care about what few people see. Some time 
ago, I calculated that the ASLAN alternative root server gets as
many querys in a month as the 'legacy' root server A (one of
thirteen) gets in seven minutes. This relation may have changed
a bit, but for the majority of Internet users (and trademark 
attorneys), the alternative root servers still are simply 
invisible. As alternative root servers gain popularity, 
companies will try to sue perceived cybersquatters also in the 
alternative name space.
By the way: E.g. the alternative Name.Space project has a Famous 
Names policy in place and "has already revoked several obviously 
infringing registrations".

Secondly, alternative root servers are only root servers run
by different people. Whether they are better or worse depends
on who runs them (and who uses them). Currently, it seems the 
alt.roots are maintained mainly by very small companies, some for
idealistic, some for more mundane monetary reasons. 
If there was a major decline in use of the 'legacy' (ICANN/US
Government) root servers, I doubt that it would stay like this.
To run a worldwide root server system, you need experience and
money. I would not be surprised to see Microsoft.Root™ or 
AOLTimeWarnerDNS™ -- just pre-configure major browsers, open
up some interesting sites and start a major campaign. How about
a EU Root Server System administered by the European Commission?
All this would be 'alternative', but would it be an alternative?

Thirdly, the tipping over would play havoc with the Internet.
Currently, there are unique assignments if you stay on the 
'legacy' root. If there were several large name spaces, you
would have to add the name space to the address -- e.g. I want
to send a mail to gerhard@wendebourg.nom@icannroot, not to
gerhard@wendebourg.nom@msroot. Now, if you are lucky, the
different name spaces are coordinated in some way, so that
there is only one wendebourg.nom around. But how, according
to what rules, and by whom shall they be coordinated? What
happens in cases of multiples claims to a TLD? There would 
be a need for META-ICANN (or rather: the problem would
have been transferred up one level).

Whichever way we choose, there will always be conflicts. 
I don't believe in any scheme that miraculously makes these
conflicts go away. Instead, we have to find ways to solve
these conflicts in a fair manner. Alt.roots are good in 
that they put a bit of pressure on ICANN by showing that
there are other options, but I doubt that they are the key
to success.

Best regards,
/// Alexander