Tapio, all,
The intent of the ALSC proposal of tying membership to domain
registrants
is that these are identifiable stakeholders in ICANN-related work. The
argument follows that getting a domain name is no great barrier to
entry.
The concern being raised is that this will mean yet more domain names
registered for purposes that have nothing to do with, well, domain
names.
Domain registration as ticket to ICANN participation, as opposed to the
technical purpose of DNS, which is mapping from names to hosts.
As for flattening the tree -- DNS is inherently meant to be
hierarchical;
that's how load is (meant to be) shared across DNS servers. In today's
world, it is uncommon to go beyond 3 components in a hostname
(www.bunyip.com,
for example). Organizations will register more SLDs rather than
creating
a logical structure in a single domain. The collection of entries in
the DNS is growing wider (at the second level) than deeper, and this
is not how DNS was designed/optimized.
So, registering yet more SLDs for non-technical reasons is perceived
as a bad thing for the DNS, for technical reasons.
Leslie.
Tapio Kaijanen wrote:
>
> Dear Leslie
>
> While looking for further IETF input could you explain to me (and may be
> some others have not fully understod it either) what means the second
> statement originated from IETF; especially that on "further flatten the
> tree".
>
> > > If ICANN at large voting "membership" is important, tying it to
> > > second- or third-level domain name registrations could lead to
> > > the creation of more registrations that are not tied to functioning
> > > domains. It would then also tend to further flatten the tree. Neither
> > > of these is desirable.
>
> With kind regards
> Tapio
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Leslie Daigle" <leslie@THINKINGCAT.COM>
> To: <azucena.hernandez@POP3.TELEFONICA.ES>
> Cc: <pso-pc@ties.itu.ch>
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 7:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Comments to the ALSC
>
> >
> > Thank you, Azucena, for your efforts in reconciling the viewpoints.
> >
> > I will look for broader IETF input before commenting further, but
> > will note already that:
> >
> > > PSO-PC has no strong objections to restrict the membership of the
> > > proposed ALSO to "those individuals holding a domain name".
> >
> > is not consistent with:
> >
> > > While the ALSC report concludes that this is a problem for e-mail
> > > based voter registration, it is our opinion that existing technical
> > > systems are not sufficient for precluding the same behaviour in
> > > individual domain registration based systems.
> > >
> > > If ICANN at large voting "membership" is important, tying it to
> > > second- or third-level domain name registrations could lead to
> > > the creation of more registrations that are not tied to functioning
> > > domains. It would then also tend to further flatten the tree. Neither
> > > of these is desirable.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"The best laid plans
are written in pencil."
-- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------