Are you advocating competing root servers or competing root systems? If
you are advocating competing root systems, why? (This would be outside
of ICANN's mandate so that is why I am asking)
Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > G-C Charter indicates that our mandate is to arrive at consensus on the
> > following questions;
> >
> > 1. Should there be new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)?
>
> Yes.
>
> > If yes: How many?
>
> Here's how I answer that question:
>
> There should be no limit on the number of root systems that may be
> established by those who which to establish such systems. When I say root
> system, I don't mean an individual root server but rather an entire set of
> servers that operate much like the current set, a-l.root-servers.net --
> one points to 'em via the named.cache/db.cache/cache.db file.
>
> Each such root system operator will try to attract customers based on its
> service offering. This service offering will consist to two things: the
> inventory of TLDs that it offers and value added services.
>
> Starting with the second thing, value added services - Yes, one can
> conceive of a DNS root system in which there are benefits to be obtained
> by the choice of root. For example, one can conceive of a system in which
> the subscribers to that root will obtain DNS query responses that are
> filtered to exclude well know porn sites. (Yes there are other ways to do
> this, but why should we prejudge the best way?)
>
> The first thing - the inventory of TLDs: A root system operator will
> select which TLD's he/she wants to include. That selection will be based
> on what the root operator thinks would be appropriate.
>
> (Overall, I expect all root operators to try to trump one another with
> more and more TLDs, the net result being that everybody has every TLD and
> the only difference being the value added services.)
>
> This makes the answer to the question: let the root server operators
> decide what TLDs they which to recognize and include in their "inventory".
>
> As for what happens if there are two or more different groups that want to
> offer a TLD of the same name? Well, I'd let 'em duke it out among
> themselves using established legal and economic methods. I know that if I
> were a root operator I'd be hesitant to include any disputed TLD in my own
> inventory.
>
> Yes, this is a somewhat "radical" proposal, but it is one that replaces a
> regulated single DNS with one that is regulated by the competitive forces
> and is in line with the actual technology of DNS. It also makes the net
> more robust by removing a single point of failure.
>
> And yes, it is not a panacea. It leaves open some of the issues most
> important to individual domain name owners - like that of
> registry/registrar lock in and domain name portability.
>
> It also trusts to the rational judgement of root zone operators to avoid
> doing economically stupid things that would also reduce the degree to
> which net users can depend on DNS lookups to give them the answers they
> expect.
>
> --karl--
--
Rod Dixon Visiting Assistant Professor of Law Rutgers University School of Law - Camden rod@cyberspaces.org http://www.cyberspaces.org - This message was sent via the IDNO-DISCUSS mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno-discuss" to majordomo@idno.org. For more information, see http://www.idno.org/