DRAFT: ICANN AtLarge position on new gTLDs
I just send a full article to the GTLD-WG. It is the result of an intensive discussion at the ICANN Studienkreis meeting in Helsinki, Finland, 5/9/2008 Please read and discuss it on gtld-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org ****************************************************************************** DRAFT: ICANN AtLarge position on new gTLDs gtld-community-reception-draft-Sep2008 Lutz Donnerhacke, EURALO Abstract ~~~~~~~~ The community clearly welcomes the new gTLDs especially the IDN version, because it will drop the entrance level by providing a more concise view. The proposed gTLD process is focused on commerical interests only, which causes substantial fears in the community. But the IDN fasttrack proposal for ccTLD is explicitly supported. Futhermore this draft tries to start discussion about medium term importance of domain names. Based on the current community experience, we expect the DNS to be faced out in favor of overlay networks which obtain their names from the dynamically shaped digital neighbourhoods. [...] ******************************************************************************
of domain names. Based on the current community experience, we expect the DNS to be [phased] out in favor of overlay networks which obtain their names from the dynamically shaped digital neighbourhoods.
I would be interested in hearing more about this, especially in what you define as the time horizon for these expected changes. Personally, I don't agree with the conclusion. My belief is that the DNS will not be phased out in the foreseeable future, even though users may, as practical matter, rely on alternative methods of navigation for the web. But I'm certainly eager to hear alternative views. Bret
At 22:42 08/09/2008, Bret Fausett wrote:
of domain names. Based on the current community experience, we expect the DNS to be [phased] out in favor of overlay networks which obtain their names from the dynamically shaped digital neighbourhoods.
I would be interested in hearing more about this, especially in what you define as the time horizon for these expected changes.
Personally, I don't agree with the conclusion. My belief is that the DNS will not be phased out in the foreseeable future, even though users may, as practical matter, rely on alternative methods of navigation for the web. But I'm certainly eager to hear alternative views.
Brett, do not worry. DNS is just a computer oriented genetive syntax. You can replace "." by " of ". What may not survive very long is the ICANN idea to make a business out of it, selling people their own names. Alternative syntaxes can exist and be used by other services than trasporting access like the Internet. What may not survive very long either is the odd idea to make it a power tool, centraliszing it. What is expressed in the concept to localized roots matrix, should not be a real problem should IETF be able to use classes correctly. However the limited number of available classes (we have 64.000 where we would probably need 10.000.000 times more), there is a possibility to support them which is EDNS. Just think of the post-codes. Today, the DNS names are only organised in one single Washington neigborhood. You can consider them local to some other place, or related to you. This is the difference between a centralised, decentralised and distributed systems. This does not change the names of the places and people. Just that you relate them to other kinds of identification spots. jfc
Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz@thur.de> writes:
I just send a full article to the GTLD-WG. It is the result of an intensive discussion at the ICANN Studienkreis meeting in Helsinki, Finland, 5/9/2008
I read through this and my immediate reaction is: 1) What are the 3 highlevel messages (or bullet points) this document is intending to communicate? (There is lots of stuff about how important IDNs are, but I think everyone understands that and it isn't necessary to repeat what there is broad agreement on already). 2) What is the purpose of this document? I assume it is to be used as input into the gTLD discussion (and maybe the fast track). Given that, how do the bullet points from 1) relate to this? Note: my overall context here is that I think ALAC should focus on providing focused and relevant input into the ongoing discussions. From that perspective, what information or issue is missing or absent from the current proposals/discussions that ALAC feels needs attention? Thomas
participants (4)
-
Bret Fausett -
JFC Morfin -
Lutz Donnerhacke -
Thomas Narten