[discuss] Criteria for Internet Governance (was) Re: List announcement "robust governance in the digital age"

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Feb 11 19:31:12 UTC 2014

On 11/02/2014 23:47, Michel Gauthier wrote:
> Top-down is the ICANN, /1net approach: you cannot question the decrees
> of the root.

This is mixing up the technical meaning of top-down with the
organisational meaning.

Technically we must have a unique root to ensure that the Internet
does not contain ambiguous names. That is mathematically and
logically the same thing as a top-down mechanism. Like all
the "roots" in computer science, we draw it at the top of the
paper. If you draw it upside down, it's the same thing.

Organisationally we currently have a single organisation, managed
by the multi-stakeholder approach, to administer the unique root.
That's a human choice, not imposed by mathematics. But the
multi-stakeholder approach seems pretty bottom-up to me. The
only blot is the pointless NTIA contract.


More information about the discuss mailing list