[CPWG] Are Blockchain Domains within the Mission of ICANN - WAS RE: Questions to the board about distributed DNS

[Jeff Neuman]

Dear CPWG,

Before engaging with other ACs or even the Board on this issue, I believe the ALAC should decide whether they believe Blockchain domains are even within ICANN’s scope/mission.  There is a good argument to be made that the activities that occur with Blockchain domain names are not within ICANN’s mission.

ICANN’s mission is to “ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique identifier systems….”

Question:  Are blockchain domains part of “the Internet’s unique identifier systems”?

The argument against this being in ICANN’s mission is that Blockchain domains are not part of the “DNS”. Thus, (a) uniform or coordinates resolution is not reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS (Section 1.1 (a)(i) of the ICANN Bylaws).

It is quite possible that Blockchain domains present a threat to the DNS or certainly impacts the DNS.  So the appropriate questions for the Board/SOs/SCs and other is not how ICANN can be involved with Blockchain domains, but rather how does ICANN respond to the existence of the Blockchain Domains, if at all.

For example, will ICANN be able to delegate new TLDs in the DNS if there are conflicting Blockchain domains?

But to assume that ICANN has any jurisdiction over the Blockchain domains or any ability to “regulate” them (if that is even possible) is something we need to examine as it pertains to the mission/scope of ICANN.

Sincerely,

Jeff



[cid:image001.png at 01D8B3B7.2B1D30B0]
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff at jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
http://jjnsolutions.com


From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Chokri Ben Romdhane via CPWG
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 6:42 AM
To: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
Cc: CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] Questions to the board about distributed DNS

Dear Olivier,
Thank you for your time and interest in this topic.
I understand your point very well, and I totally agree with you and with other friends that we need to engage more discussion within our group  in order to get the large  consensual  decision, and yes SSAC could be a good vis a vis at this stage.

Friendly regards
Chokri


Le ven. 19 août 2022 à 11:23, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com<mailto:ocl at gih.com>> a écrit :
Dear Chokri,

thanks for bringing this to the CPWG mailing list. Just explaining, I am not calling the questions "immature" - I think they are very pertinent questions, but in terms of maturity in the At-Large discussion, the ALAC position on these topics has not yet matured. Your launch of discussion here will indeed help, and I note that Justine's response relating to both OCTO and SSAC is very pertinent.
I mentioned on the call that this could indeed be a topic for the customary discussion between SSAC and ALAC at this stage.
Kindest regards,

Olivier
On 19/08/2022 12:07, Chokri Ben Romdhane wrote:
Dear friends,
I personally have in mind those  questions for the board about  distributed DNS

"Some ICANN accredited  registrars sell some blockchain DNS based gTLDs, did the board  encourage such activities?
If some non regular DNS causes some collision with some regular DNS gTLD ,accredited by ICANN, how will ICANN act to resolve this issue?"

If you  continue to consider those questions immature as most of our friends mentioned during the call, I personally support Sebastien's proposal to constitute a subgroup that will continue to follow this topic.

Thank you again for your interest in this topic.
Friendly regards
Chokri




--

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD

http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20220819/5753dc9e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 67520 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20220819/5753dc9e/image001-0001.png>