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

Thu Aug 25 12:55:15 UTC 2022

Interesting stuff.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 8:52 AM Jeff Neuman via CPWG <cpwg at icann.org> wrote:

> And this twisting of words is one of the problems of the ICANN community
> that takes it for granted that just because these movements failed in the
> past, they are doomed to fail in the future.
>
> Like you Evan I too initially had that position.  After all, no one was
> more was heavily involved in the alternate root debate / ICP-3 back in
> 2000/2001 when we had to litigate against the then-called Atlantic Root who
> sued Neustar and ICANN when we were awarded .biz.   Then came "Real Names"
> and other versions.
>
> However, the real reason why those other movements failed had nothing to
> do with ICANN, but had everything to do with the browsers and other
> applications that did not recognize these alternate roots without a plug-in
> / third party software to make them work.  In a way this does support your
> argument that ICANN should just ignore the Blockchain domains because
> ICANN's involvement or lack thereof is irrelevant to the success or not of
> the Blockchain domains.
>
> However, this is a superficial view and ignores the question about why
> these alternate roots keep popping up and what makes Blockchain domains so
> different than previous alt roots.  And I believe it is a combination of
> factors.
>
>
>    1.  Traditional DNS / Domain Names are now 40-50 year old technology
>    that while scalable up to a point does have its limitations.
>    2. The ICANN environment which is so incredibly slow has a tough time
>    (if not makes it impossible) for new technology to be integrated into the
>    domain name system.  What do I mean?
>       1. Every time in the past 22 years when a registry wants to
>       introduce new functionality or technology into the system, ICANN (community
>       and Org) do everything in its power to delay or water down its emergency.
>       I am not saying it tries to intentionally sabotage new innovation, but
>       through its incredibly beaurocratic  and complex processes requests for
>       truly new services grind to a halt.
>       2. When new technologies want to be introduced, incumbent players
>       in the industry that may be negatively impacted by the new technology do
>       their best to ensure that such new technology is either rejected outright
>       or is caught up in so much delay and process that time and other new
>       technologies make the original request no longer relevant.  The first
>       example I witnessed of this was the application for .geo in 2000 which was
>       not accepted by ICANN.  The two reasons given by the Board was (1) we dont
>       understand the technology behind the proposal and (2) Since Neustar was the
>       registry back-end (the most insignificant part of the .geo proposal), and
>       they already got .biz, we dont want them involved in another TLD.  NOTE:
>        the reality is that SRI was the applicant and essentially had planned to
>       roll out a system much like Google Earth (only a decade earlier).  This
>       scenario has repeated time and time again, including when the .hiphop
>       registry was being assigned from its former registry to where it is now.
>       That assignment (which normally takes less than 90 days), took 9 months
>       because of the mention of the words Blockchain and NFT.  Just take a look
>       at the history of RSEP requests and you can find a number of examples of
>       services that were proposed and delayed which eventually either were
>       withdrawn (because of the headache of the process), or were watered down.
>
>
> The point is that some of the drawbacks of the multi stakeholder model are
> that (a) everyone has to have their say regardless of whether they are
> impacted or not, (b) if the org or the community doesn't understand a
> proposal (or the proposal may negatively impact their commercial interests)
> it pushes back hard to the point where delay is beneficial, and (c) the
> model is to slow to react to what is truly going on around them.
>
> Eventually, this will lead to many working around the system.   They may
> fail over and over again, but there is always a breaking point.  Is that
> here and now?  We dont know, but we cant turn a blind eye towards it.
>
> Just some food for thought.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Founder & CEO
> JJN Solutions, LLC
> Jeff at JJNSolutions.com
> +1.202.549.5079
> Http://www.jjnsolutions.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2022 1:26 AM
> *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
> *Cc:* Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>; Chokri Ben Romdhane <
> chokribr at gmail.com>; CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] Are Blockchain Domains within the Mission of ICANN
> - WAS RE: Questions to the board about distributed DNS
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 11:57 AM Jeff Neuman via CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>> However, asking whether the Board understands that the longer it takes to
>> introduce the process for the next round, the more it is indirectly
>> encouraging the proliferation of these Blockchain domains and the more
>> problems there will be in the future with potential “collisions” of
>> namespaces not associated with ICANN.
>>
>
> Hey there, ICANN.
> Nice little DNS business you got going.
> Now listen here ... if you don't give us a new shitload of TLDs to peddle
> we're gonna go off and create our own DNS so we can invent them ourselves.
> Not only that, but we're gonna use current buzzwords to sell our new stuff.
> What's the buzzword all those Tiktok influencers are flogging?
> Yeah, Bitcoin! That one!
> Maybe we'll sell the subdomains as NFTs!!
> Then you'll REALLY be sorry when we start making our TLDs the same as
> yours!
> But hey, we're reasonable people.
> Just send the TLDs we're demanding in an unmarked envelope to our PO box
> in the Caymans.
> And then you won't have to worry your little heads...
> Until the next time we want some more.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20220825/23b46be8/attachment-0001.html>