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

Thu Aug 25 17:32:55 UTC 2022

Hi Michele,
Do you mean this session
https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2018-ws-408-dns-enhancements-and-alternatives-for-the-future-internet
.

Freindly regards
Chokri

Le mer. 24 août 2022 à 4:56 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <
michele at blacknight.com> a écrit :

> Somebody with more patience than I might be able to find links to
> materials ICANN used at the IGF in Geneva a few years back. One of their
> technical team gave a very good presentation about “alternate identifiers”,
> which was very helpful.
>
>
>
> There definitely is the potential for confusion between “real” domains
> that actually resolve on the public internet and ones that don’t.
>
>
>
> I’m also having flashbacks to “new net” or whatever it was called from the
> 90s
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Michele
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mr Michele Neylon
>
> Blacknight Solutions
>
> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
>
> https://www.blacknight.com/
>
> https://blacknight.blog/
>
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>
> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
>
> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
>
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *CPWG <cpwg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman via CPWG <
> cpwg at icann.org>
> *Date: *Friday, 19 August 2022 at 15:40
> *To: *Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr at gmail.com>, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
> <ocl at gih.com>
> *Cc: *CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[CPWG] Are Blockchain Domains within the Mission of ICANN -
> WAS RE: Questions to the board about distributed DNS
>
> *[EXTERNAL EMAIL]* Please use caution when opening attachments from
> unrecognised sources.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>
> Founder & CEO
>
> JJN Solutions, LLC
>
> p: +1.202.549.5079
>
> E: 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> 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/20220825/ac819d18/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 67520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20220825/ac819d18/image001-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 67520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20220825/ac819d18/image001-0003.png>