[governance] The decentralization of the DNS system
dogwallah at gmail.com
Tue Jun 23 06:28:32 EDT 2015
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
> More on roots.
> It has been interesting to discuss alternative ideas regarding the way we
> look and envision the future of DNS management (governance).
> Here is a presentation made by Binxing Fang and Xiaohua Chen, few days ago
> in Cuba. It provides a clear view of a Chinese challenging innovative (at
> least it will be new to many) proposal regarding DNS issues.
> It introduces the idea of an Inter-Root at ccTLD level. A first step toward
> a "self-governed architecture for DNS Root Zone resolution".
a seemingly unworkable solution to 3 non-existent threats.
For example, the ppt suggests that Somalia has been removed from the root.
looking at nic.so proves that this is not the case.
> All of that, in addition to the Open-Root's approach of the root zone issue,
> indicates that the current DNS governance, under
> USG/NTIA/ICANN/IANA/VERISIGN is soon to belong to the past as the sole
> monopolistic scheme to handle DNS root zone issues. It also clearly shows
> that technicalities are not there to stop such a tide, as technicalities are
> very manageable - at least easier to handle than political issues.
If we are to do a fork-lift upgrade to the addressing scheme of the
entire Internet, this is not the one to choose. The one that actually
needs doing is IPv6 transition.
> We have plenty of options at hand, whether by introducing one or several of
> the following:
> - an Inter-Root mechanism (rather smart)
> - a competition among root zone management systems allowing users to make
> their mind for registering domain name, and resolving name to IP requests.
> - a class system for roots, similar to what WIPO did for brands, so that
> resolution is set with automatisms.
> - a result page for similar domain names registered in a diversity of roots,
> that could include a class system (as mentioned above)
> There is little doubt that things are changing and that no one can stop the
> digital reforming tide. At the end of the day, the US might lose more thanks
> to its rigid approach in Internet Governance in preserving its "natural"
> digital privileges, for the sake of its security and commercial interests.
> The Chinese proposal is consistent with two key political statements:
> - See the note by the UN Secretary-General UN to the General Assembly (June
> 2013) as per the work of the "Group of Governmental Experts on Developments
> in the field of Information and Telecommunications in the context of
> International Security". "State sovereignty and international norms and
> principles that flow from sovereignty apply to State conduct of ICT-related
> activities, and to their jurisdiction over ICT infrastructure within their
> - Read the opening statement by Xi Jinping, chairman of the first World
> Internet Conference (and China Premier) in november 2014: "China is willing
> to work together with other countries in the world, in the spirit of mutual
> respect and trust. We together deepen international cooperation, respect for
> sovereignty of the network, maintain network security, and build a peaceful,
> secure, open and cooperative network. We hope to establish a multilateral,
> democratic, transparent international governance system."
multilateralism is not something this list will likely get behind.
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
For all other list information and functions, see:
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance