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. >>