[45863] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ICANN - The Case for Replacing its Management
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Simon Higgs)
Tue Feb 26 14:50:14 2002
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020226113802.02fe1768@oak.higgs.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:49:37 -0800
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>
In-Reply-To: <200202261718.g1QHIHVj003173@foo-bar-baz.cc.vt.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 12:18 PM 2/26/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 01:36:31 PST, Vadim Antonov said:
>
> > 1) first-come first-served registration
>
>Unfortunately, the concept is totally borked right here, mostly
>because of the use of DNS as a yellow-pages. Two companies that own
>trademarks in different fields of business both have to register under
>.COM (ok, so they *could* register under .US - hah), with the obvious
>outcomes we've known to love and enjoy (Anybody remember who the
>*original* owner of abc.com was?)
That's the point. Two (or more) companies don't *HAVE* to fight for
identical flat space. This unique naming thing is all fine and good, but it
is highly explosive/toxic within a confined space - especially one that is
artificially constrained. The name space is fortunately flexible enough to
accommodate competing companies and identical marks.
The alt.roots have already provided a working proof of concept without all
the B.S. I'd even to so far as to say Randy Bush's recent description of an
ideal ICANN ("icann only needs to a) coordinate allocation of address space
to the RIRs, b) maintain the root zone file, c) slowly try to get MOUs with
the folk icann actually serves") describes ORSC far better than it does ICANN.
>There's no way you can pile 23 million (or however many it is now) things
>into one level of namespace and actually expect people to play nicely.
Aw... now you're preaching to the choir... ;-)
Best Regards,
Simon
--
###
