[LINK] 'Shake-up' for internet proposed by ICANN

[Kim Davies]

Quoting Glen Turner on Monday June 30, 2008:
>
>> I believe the root server operators have been resistant to being funded
>> through ICANN and prefer to remain independent.
>
> There's a difference between funding and control -- ICANN could
> offer one without the other if it chose to do so.

I'm not aware of any desire by root server operators to seek funding
from ICANN, but I am sure if they wish to request it it would be duly
considered. Why should ICANN offer to pay people that haven't expressed
any desire for funding?

>> I'm not aware of any registrar pressure against DNSSEC.
> Then you should go to more IETF meetings.

I haven't seen any registrar pressure in the DNSEXT (or DNSOP) working
groups, although admittedly I have missed the last couple of IETF
meetings. Can you elaborate?

What I've observed is general registrar apathy. This is not surprising.
What is the commercial incentive? It is hard enough to get registrars
just to transmit IPv6 glue for domains. But that's fine. If some
registrars offer it and people want DNSSEC support, they can go to one
that supports what they need.

> Back to the original topic, what is the point of the new
> top-level domains -- what problem does it solve?

Personally, I think the key problem it solves is that fact that
currently those who do not use Latin script based languages have
difficulty in use ASCII-only top-level domains. The fact that new TLDs
in non-Latin characters will be permitted will be of great utility to
them.

As for the benefit of new 'public interest' domains like .bank or
.africa, beats me. As for domains like .google, I guess each company
will have their own rationale if they opt to go down that path.

> The current plan has long-term problems of scalability.
> Not to mention moving the root zone from reasonable stability
> into one continuously updated from registry software. Yeah,
> nothing can go wrong with that.

Agreed.

kim