[CCWG-ACCT] DNS

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

In addition,

ICANN has NO mandate WHATSOEVER with regards to ccTLD managers.

el

On 2016-04-19 09:01, James Gannon wrote:
> I don’t want to seem blunt but this it literally the core concept
> of how the internet was designed.
> 
> Whatever we can say about the CCWG exceeding its remit in other
> areas I certainly don’t think we can start questioning core
> principles of how the internet is designed.
> 
> -James
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 19/04/2016, 7:08 a.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Dear Andrew
>> Dear steve
>> Once again I am grateful for your very detailed reply but I am
>> still remained unconvinced that there is no coordinated actions on
>> delegation of Name.  I an surprised that people push to maintain
>> such disintegrated spread activities
>> Regards
>> Kavouss
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On 18 Apr 2016, at 15:13, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 09:01:05AM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Should there be a need to make ICANN responsible for an overall
>>>> policy under which those individual entities coordinate the
>>>> allocation and assignments of Names in the Domain Name System or
>>>> not?
>>>
>>> Not only do I not think there should be a need, I don't think
>>> there should even be a desire.  The DNS is designed not to have
>>> that single policy or any such sort of global rule.  It would be
>>> contrary to the technical reality of the DNS to try to make such a
>>> rule.
>>>
>>> RFC 2181 points out quite clearly (even more clearly than RFC 1034
>>> -- see 2181 section 11) that names in the DNS have only
>>> restrictions about length.  People have already implemented things
>>> that depend on that lack of restriction.  Mostly, those
>>> implementations have been out in the "leaf nodes", because the
>>> hierarchical nature of the DNS makes that the wisest place to do
>>> such things.  (Compare this reasoning with the IAB's guidance on
>>> internationalized labels -- see RFC 6912.)
>>>
>>> Everything we have ever learned about operations on the Internet
>>> tells us that centralised authority doesn't work.  There's no
>>> reason to suppose this case is any different.  The DNS was
>>> designed to dispose of a point of centralisation in the Internet
>>> -- one that caused real operational problems.  It would be a
>>> massive retrograde step to try to re-impose such administrative
>>> centralisation again.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> A
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Andrew Sullivan
[...]
-- 
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/