Any reactions concerning the suggestions in Take a tiny first step 
toward controlling your internet addressing destiny 
<http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000783.html> (NNSquad) ?

Nicolas

On 11/20/2010 6:54 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
> Get back in the box.
>
> While we keep using a name resolution system that requires uniqueness,
> there is only one way to guarantee its uniqueness, a unique and
> central authority (even if administration of some pieces is
> decentralized such as the ccTLDs, that by virtue each one is also
> unique and part of the overall system).
>
> What we need is a novel and modern name and resource resolution
> system, the current DNS has been overused and abused for way too many
> things not contemplated in its original design, and the overall system
> and ecosystem around it is a mess/chaos under control, plus driving a
> several $B industry that exerts a lot of resistance to change.
>
> My .02
> Jorge
>
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Marc Perkel<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>> Just wondering.
>>
>> It seems that ICANN is the point where it is most vulnerable to government
>> control because it is a point where domains can be removed from the
>> Internet. I'm wondering if there is a way to decentralize that, and if it
>> would be a good idea to do so if it could be done.
>>
>> As I understand the technology, ICANN controls the root servers. Would it be
>> possible to have multiple root server systems outside of central control? Or
>> is there a way ICANN can operate outside of US control? To be able to say NO
>> to US law?
>>
>> Just trying to think outside the box.
>>