[governance] Coordination considered harmful (Was: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains]

[Meryem Marzouki]

Le 2 mars 06 à 15:35, Stephane Bortzmeyer a écrit :

> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 11:52:02AM +0100,
>  Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org> wrote
>  a message of 27 lines which said:
>
>> The situation is quite easy to understand:
>
> Yes it is. The "coordination" is either:
>
> 1) Mandatory, which means it has the authority to force decisions,
> such as who manages ".com" or ".fr". If so, this is just a new root,
> may be better than ICANN (this is not difficult) but hardly different
> in its principle.
>
> 2) Non-binding and in that case, it is simply multiple roots, and you
> lose the current property of the DNS that one name -> one resource,
> wherever you are. I let you decide if this loss is a big problem or
> not but let's not play with words. If we want multiple roots, let us
> be aware of what we will lose, not just of what we will gain.

My point is that "coordination" needs to be "mandatory" (not  
acceptable to loose the one name<->one resource principle) and  
"good" (allowing multiple roots, provided that strong and enforceable  
rules to guarantee the one name<->one resource need, and other major  
needs like respect for HR standards, and others).

It's certainly a long way to reach (if we ever do) acceptance for  
this "good coordination" between, e.g., many "recognized root  
managing organizations" (be they ICANNs, ITUs, non-governmental/non- 
profit orgs, whatever). By "recognized" I mean showing full respect  
for the strong and enforceable rules to be defined, which should be  
the condition to take part in the coordination.

The idea is not new, and has been suggested by many, at different  
times, including in this caucus. What has not been done in a  
comprehensive way, at least to my knowledge, is the definition and  
analysis of what these rules can be, and how they can be made  
enforceable, disregarding - at least during this first step - the  
type of organizations that could be "recognized root managing  
organizations".

"Recognized" root would mean, in the end, which TLDs are technically  
carried by all others roots. But all the other, preceeding steps are  
policy issues. Alternate, non "recognized" in this sense, roots, will  
obviously still exist on more or less isolated islands, breaching or  
not the one name<->one resource principle. But this first already  
exists and second doesn't really matter.

I don't think it's the right time and the right place to go ahead  
with this discussion: CS (re)organization and the role of this caucus  
and other CS organizations and coalitions should be, in my opinion,  
the first priority here and now. I simply wanted with this quick  
answer to avoid misunderstandings.

Meryem
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance