[discuss] Options for root zone

[Dr. Ben Fuller]

All,

To follow on with Mike's thoughts, this thread has some compelling points to argue in favour of ICANN's performance in managing the root zone and and for the viability of the multi stakeholder model. 

Ben


On Jan 18, 2014, at 3:15 AM, Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike,
> 
> a standing, sonorous +1. 
> 
> Next issue please (an orphan one, now, pleeeease!!)
> 
> Alejandro Pisanty
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Mike Roberts <mmr at darwin.ptvy.ca.us> wrote:
> This discussion could benefit from a somewhat broader  and more substantive perspective.
> 
> (1) In the early ICANN days, before gTLD expansion became a reality, questions revolved around whether countries should or should not be in the root.  Jon Postel fervently did NOT want to be in a decision loop on this subject, and deferred to the UN postal code table for guidance.  ICANN's Board felt as Jon did; this was a subject on which the UN should/would have the final word.
> 
> In the entire existence of the DNS, there has never been an occasion in which Postel or ICANN entertained the notion of unilaterally adding or dropping a country's name servers from the root.  The UN holds sway in this area, and always has.  If there are genuine issues, they lie outside of ICANN.
> 
stuff deleted

**********************************************
Dr. Ben Fuller
+264-61-224470  (O)    +264-88-63-68-05 (F)
ben at fuller.na             http://www.fuller.na
skype: drbenfuller
**********************************************