[At-Large] CCWG Briefings - Presentation
karl at cavebear.com
Sat Mar 5 21:38:52 UTC 2016
On 03/05/2016 03:48 AM, parminder wrote:
> I think I have not been able to make my proposal clear... I do think
> that incorporation of ICANN (the same ICANN as it is) under
> international law is the best final solution, and internationalisation
> is not what you and others make it out to be. However, my current
> proposal was *not about internationalisation*, it is much simpler. (It
> is also *not really about an alternative root* - not like we know of
> alternative roots, this will still be *the ICANN root*,
I'm more than mildly confused. (A fairly normal state of affairs for
I am not aware of any way that a group of j-random people can create a
corporation that is under "international law". Could you be more specific?
(In addition, could you educate me on what mechanisms would exist to
hold such an entity to operate within its given bounds and to follow the
As I mentioned previously, I have concerns that the path you are
suggesting would take years of international negotiations and would more
than likely result in something with an "ugly quotiant" on par with the
Also, I am not clear what you mean by "the root". ICANN produces a
chunk of structured text called a "zone file". A zone file is nothing
but some text. Here's the current one:
http://www.internic.net/domain/root.zone (about 1.3megabytes).
That goes via NTIA to Verisign. At that point the contents of that file
are not yet part of a domain name system.
Rather, that file has to be be voluntarily picked up by the various root
server operators and voluntarily incorporated into the servers they
operate. Those root server operators are not obligated to pick up that
zone file, not are they prevented from making changes if they do so. It
is merely their good will that keeps them doing what they have been doing.
(BTW, we posit 13 root server clusters. But that limit of 13 could be
disturbed if the names are altered from the current things that all end
in .servers.net because of the side effects of a thing called "name
compression" used to construct DNS packets.)
BTW, again, the .africa thing you mentioned in your subsequent email
strikes me not as an aspect of US hegemony or interference but just the
normal kind of thing when there are disputes whether an organization is
playing by its own rules. And the court order is merely to temporarily
refrain from doing something until more facts can be ascertained.
That's a fairly light handed kind of "interference".
More information about the At-Large