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 me. ;-) 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 mandated procedures?) 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 TPP. ;-) 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". --karl--