Still, and keeping in mind that the link between your two last messages was not clear nor a given, what you quote now and what you quoted then are (what i take to be, from your reference of them) assertions of efficient principles: namely that subsidiarity and decentralization work best for scalability, interoperability, flexibility, et. al. Now i am not going to dispute that. Nor will, i think, anyone who would favor gTLD enlargement (but i might be astray on this last assertion and it is possible that some people like ICANN for it's centralizing potentialities). But you were nevertheless implying "harm". And while i do see an alternative, i do not see harm proceeding from the current gTLD-enlarging path. I do not see anything that wouldn't be fundamentally changed anyhow by the alternative solution you introduce me to, and i certainly does not see harm being done, irreparable or otherwise, by a gTLD enlargement. Just so you know: if you build it, i will come. But in the meantime, is there actual harm in enlarging it? Nicolas On 6/14/2011 8:06 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > At 20:30 14/06/2011, Nicolas Adam wrote: >> Dear JFC >> Would you care to elaborate instead of asserting stuff peremptorily >> (and implicitly, and vaguely) please? > > I am neither peremptory nor vague. I gave you the RFCs and I_D. The > ICANN gTLD book is vague and administrative. It deals with > Intellectual Property, not with Internet Protocols. > > I keep explaining that we consensually agreed at IETF the RFCs > 5890-5895, under Vint Cerf chairmanship, and that IAB published the > RFC 6055. These RFC exemplify that diversity is supported by > subsidiarity in the Internet architecture. It means that the largest > the system is, the weaker are the (de)centralized solutions; and the > stronger are locally distributed deployments. Supporting 256 ICANN > constained TLDs can be centralized. Not over priced gTLD sales against > free root names like ".FRA" I technically documented. > > I brought my support to the consensus of the RFCs I quote because they > imply that the DNS can support an unlimited diversity of TLDs, > supported by billions of users as a unique virtual root. At the IUCG > ([log in to unmask]) mailing list and site we started documenting the > resulting architecture. Then we put it on hold in a responsible > manner because ICANN was not ready to consider this situation (Vint > Cerf wanted them to take it over - they did not want). Then IETF > declined to take care of this is area because it is beyond the IETF > Internet area. This kept the situation stable a few months more. > > But as soon as ICANN starts selling K$ 250 TLDs, they will break the > market equilibrium. Technology will update quickly and thousands of > free virtual root names will mushroom. A root name is a TLD by anyone > for everyone under his/her own terms and conditions. It will take some > time, but this will be the end of ICANN because ICANN has not prepared > itself to the change of the Internet Use that it is going to trigger. > > Technically no one needs a root server system to use the Internet, > either by ICANN or open-roots. I dont for years. What users only need > is a home DNS nameserver and the lists of the TLD/Root Names they want > to use. This can be entirely free, will bring new services, speed, > security, reliability and quality. This should have been a progress > from the onset However, since ICANN did not prepared it, it will be > initial confusion. ICANN still wants to lead and sell a root file > while it should be prepared and ready to serve the virtual root system. > > jfc