At 15:57 09/06/2011, Nicolas Adam wrote: >Dear JFC, >Thx for reminding us that, not only alternatives may have merits on >their own, but that they also bear political impact. Nicolas, the difficulty (hence my more matter of fact subject) is to make people accept the possible impact of the technology evolution on the evolution of their daily use of technology use. RFC 5890-5895 and IAB RFC 6055 technically examplify (in the naming case, simpler to understand to GNSO members) that subisdiarity is the way the internet architecture supports large diversities. They look complex, very technical, etc. but in practical GNSO/ICANN terms they imply that the single root is to be virtual, i.e. co-manageable by billions of physical root files similar to the ICANNNTIA one. This is not something new or that anyone can change. This is one of the three basic principles of the Internet architecture: adaptability (RFC 1958 - in 1998) of the large systems, simplicity (RFC 3439 - 2020) of the very large systems and subsidiarity (these RFCs - in 2010) of the very very large systems. This means that core functions becomes weak if they keep being (de)centralized in front of large diversities that actually need pervasive coherent local responsibility. This means that the current ICANN is inadequate to the Internet TLD diversity they want to deploy. In selling their first new gTLD they will commit suicide. And havoc in the internet. This results from a fundamental flaw in the ICANN's conception. This flaw is a commercial misreading of subsidiarity as to "foster competition" while technically subsidiarity is the mutual respect of everyone's own reponsibility. ICANN selling TLDs is like Einsteing deciding to agree with Ptolemy. ICANN is incompatible with the Internet size they want to trigger. This time there will be no alternate roots. - for speed, security, reliability, empowerment reasons I do not use any root server for years. On Windows. Intelligent users will do like me. - Google will start helping managing and supporting "root names" (the name Bob Tréhin gave to ccTLDs in 1977). Please remember Vint Cerf, Google Internet VP, was the Chair of the WG/IDNAbis which worked out these RFCs I was eventually able to support after a ten years dispute to get them. Please remember that ICANN was created because Jon Postel tried what these RFCs lead to. It was pure Internet legacy architectural visionnary management. Only the ICANN concept could stop it, and it did for a decade. Until the ICANN Australian Naming Team decided to sell TLDs M$ 250 a piece. Cheers. jfc facilitator, [log in to unmask]