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

[mike palage.com]

Hello All,

I would encourage everyone to listen to the recording. However, I would actually start with the third presentation by CIRA (.CA).  In my personal opinion that was the best of the three.

Evan I am going to push back. I think At-Large is probably the optimal place to discuss alternative root names.  Per the At Large Website – “At-Large Community acts on the interests of Internet users.”  I would argue that At Large is not limited to just Root Zone domain names and IP addresses.   Moreover, when you look at ICANN’s articles of incorporation, I think it provides a much larger mandate that just the coordination of domain names and IP addresses:

pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (“Bylaws”). Such global public interest may be determined from time to time.  Any determination of such global public interest shall be made by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process.

Best regards,

Michael

From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Chokri Ben Romdhane via CPWG
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:10 AM
To: CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>; MOULOUD KHELIF <kelif at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] Are Blockchain Domains within the Mission of ICANN - WAS RE: Questions to the board about distributed DNS

Dear Friends,

Please find  the record of  the  Emerging Identifier Technologies<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/4ZhSDuzFnVqw66kYgnTuHdDzi_RH0IFCKqKuAzmmcFy7xUPX6aT1op_nmghEdsEV5jxGYZ_sInYl2Oow.4hEm0h7LHhMj6obE?startTime=1663743821000&_x_zm_rtaid=pNBkHu--SL-KGy5yfLrRoA.1664285662735.722e2ee0a7cb19b493f616b538af3f5b&_x_zm_rhtaid=161> session ,  held during the ICANN75 meeting,  it provides some use cases of the  emerging  identifiers technologie.
Thank you @MOULOUD KHELIF<mailto:kelif at hotmail.com> for the reminder.

Friendly regards
Chokri

Le sam. 27 août 2022 à 19:17, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org<mailto:evan at telly.org>> a écrit :
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 5:39 AM Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr at gmail.com<mailto:chokribr at gmail.com>> wrote:

But be aware  if you confirm that  the collision issues is/will never happened , as you have mentioned in your previous mail, and cross your finger that the regular DNS market will continue to attract more customers, compared to those NFT, Blockchain TLDs considering the ease of DNS management and security they are conferred to end users.

Hi again,

You made one fatal error in your assessment above: Internet end-users are not registrants.

End users don't care about DNS management, and the security THEY seek is access to registrant details in the case of domains used for abuse.
The "security" you mention protects registrants and works against the interests of end-users.

It's totally possible that the hubris of DNS alternatives may lead to collisions, but end-users will never see the effect of that, Browsers continue to use the ICANN root and to date have never seen the benefit of pointing to alternames. Plus, two of the biggest browser makers, Google and Microsoft, have a deep vested interest in obstructing any alternative DNS. Any alternate DNS hoping to be successful would need to create its own browser, which is what the TOR project did.
So even if alternative DNSs create TLDs that duplicate ICANN's they will never present any collision or confusion to end-users. The only losers will be registrants in the alternate systems. I have zero pity for them and they are certainly not ALAC's concern or even ICANN's.

Cheers,
- Evan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20220927/49d8de93/attachment-0001.html>