[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
>That is (as I tried but perhaps failed to bring out last night),
>ICANN is not so much 'solving a problem' as *creating one, by
>*trying to create 'formal' structure where none has been needed; by
>trying to draw boundaries between legitimate and illegitimate
>bits.
It's debatable whether formal structure is or isn't needed. Some
people who feel as if they've been left out of the process or that
their perspectives haven't been given audience want a more formal
structure in place than the original structure.
[Jeff Williams wrote:]
>> #3 is dealing with the [*]problem[*] of the current 13 Root
>> servers and the current Root server structure of the DNS.
>> There are many that [*]believe[*] that 13 Root servers is
>> inadequate to handle the current load [,] to provide for both more
>> competition as well as improve the Redundancy of the DNS.
>I appreciate that many may conceive there are better ways to do
>almost anything, but why is that a *problem*? As a network of
>networks, isnt the principal characteristic of the Internet that it
>can accomodate almost any system anyone wants to set up? If people
>believe in a better way to provide competition and redundancy, why
>not put it out there in parallel, and then we can all *see if it is?
This goes back to the points I raised earlier. Some people feel their
efforts to set up alternate competing systems are being blocked by the
backers of the traditional systems. I suppose theoretically they feel
that the NewCo will bring some parity to the adoption of Internet-wide
systems.
--gregbo
