[discuss] Real world Impact of multiple roots

[Seun Ojedeji]

sent from Google nexus 4
On 27 Jan 2014 17:42, "Dr. Ben Fuller" <ben at fuller.na> wrote:
For example, Namibian tourist operators depend on the Internet to make
bookings, transfer money, make flight reservations, order supplies, etc. So
if Namibia switched over to an Internet with another root,
>
I think it's better to say "....if Namibia switch to another non-ICANN DN
System..." because it seem you are attaching internet with naming (root).
Internet is just the space where bits are transfered, naming traffic being
one of them.
>
and a tour operator had connections with travel agents, banks, airlines,
suppliers in countries connected to the Internet with the original root,
communication could be a problem.
Disruptions in communication will impact businesses.
>
Obviously, (I presume the original root referred here is that within
ICANN), communication will be disrupted as "original root" will be unable
to reach your country names. Ofcourse they will be able to reach you
through IP (which I hope clears your understanding of "moving to another
internet", as internet is one large network; you are either in or out).
>
Some businesses may not be able to wait a few months, or whatever it takes
for the two systems to talk effectively to each other, and go out of
business.
>
Actually this wait may be forever as it may never happen.
>
Some businesses may have to set up their own links to both 'Internets' so
they can function and pass on the added cost.
>
Again internet is ONE if you mean setting up 2 routes for the 2 different
naming system fine. However that will only be helpful to "county users"
trying to connect to icann servers and not to icann server users trying to
connect to "county users"
>
I think we need an appreciation of these costs to an economy when we enter
into Internet Governance discussions. This would be for the social
scientists like me or better yet some good economists.
>
For me I think repelling efforts towards fragmentation of the internet
(which is main platform) is where IG discussions should focus.

> Another area of potential cost will be with the companies that run the
networks; ISPs, telecoms, cable operators, etc. How would they deal with
two roots on an Internet? Would they need additional equipment, upgraded
equipment, software? If so what would the costs be here? Some of the
technical people could provide answers.
>
There are already many non-ICANN naming system. Naming is business which
anyone can decide to start his/her own and then try to market people to use
their servers. The more people (users) that use the server the more likely
ISPs will embrace it. ICANN is generally perceived to enjoy monopoly not
because they locked down the internet, but because their servers are mostly
used by internet users. Just like there are many search engines, but most
use Google by default (that ain't monopoly).

> A couple people mentioned a problem if both roots allowed the same domain
names. Clearly if the two roots did not cooperate there would be lots of
problems. Could you imagine two Googles? One being the Google we know and
the other selling used cars or something. A lot of people could be very
unhappy.
>
This is why there may be no sync between non-ICANN servers and those of
ICANN; they endeavor to avoid duplicate naming within their system.

I hope this helps.

Cheers!
>

> Ben
>
> On Jan 27, 2014, at 1:35 PM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >>
>
> **********************************************
> Dr. Ben Fuller
> +264-61-224470  (O)    +264-88-63-68-05 (F)
> ben at fuller.na             http://www.fuller.na
> skype: drbenfuller
> **********************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140127/42a906e2/attachment-0001.html>