<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Andrew Sullivan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="gmail-">On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 08:04:17PM +0530, Sivasubramanian M wrote:<br>
<br>
> ICANN Coordinates the allocation of Names and Numbers, by policies and<br>
> programs. "Rule" may be a strong word here, slipped in from the question<br>
> that I was answering, it is coordination, and the coordination happens by<br>
> agreements. If it coordinates the allocation, it ought to consider itself<br>
> responsible for all aspects concerning how fairly these resources are<br>
> allocated, and ICANN especially ought to pay attention to the aspects<br>
> related to DNS data.<br>
<br>
</span>I think you will discover that quite a few of us spent a lot of time<br>
during the CCWG-Accountability work ensuring that the Mission was<br>
quite clear that ICANN does not "coordinate" the DNS beyond the root<br>
zone and certain subordinate policies in zones delegated according to<br>
contracts with ICANN. ICANN most definitely does not coordinate the<br>
allocation of names worldwide. </blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">It does. Indirectly. By allocation of Top Level Domains for worldwide registration of names.</div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The _whole point_ of the DNS is to<br>
prevent such centralization in the interests of ensuring<br>
administration is local (loosely speaking, network topologically) to<br>
the affected parties.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">I have suggested nothing here to imply that ICANN's coordination of Names, on the commercial side, should get any more detailed than decisions on TLDs and their delegation. But ICANN being the allocating body for Names on a Top Level, becomes responsible for the decision of allocation of the TLD, and (notionally) becomes responsible for ensuring that the Registry in turn ensures fairness worldwide. The Registrant Data, as the point discussed here, becomes ICANN's responsibility. If anything goes wrong, as a Registrant, I would be right in asking ICANN "my .com registration data has been abused. Why didn't you ensure that the .com Registry would keep my data safe with itself and with its Registrars?" ICANN can not possibly say, "we didn't do it, a reseller under a Registrar under the Registry did it, don't ask us". </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">One that occurred to me is to harmonize the method of collecting Registrant data and harmonize policies for release of data to Law and Order agencies, and in a way empower the DNS community to say "No" where they consider the request or directive excessive. This I have posted in a different thread. The initial thought was to centralize Registrant Data, which could be modified to be that of a system of keeping the sensitive elements of the Registrant data decentralized with the Registries, but with uniform policies across the world. Agreed, we need to make sure that any changes to the process of handling and storing Registrant data does not alter the decentralized model. There are apparent conflicts, but reconcilable. <br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Sivasubramanian M<br></div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<span class="gmail-"><br>
> By your question, "what rules does ICANN make about DNS", are you implying<br>
> that DNS is free for all, in a commercial sense?<br>
<br>
</span>Yes, actually, it is, and that's a feature and not a bug.<br>
<div class="gmail-HOEnZb"><div class="gmail-h5"><br>
A<br>
<br>
--<br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>