ICANN has added a link from Lynn's ever changing (but not marked as Updated) page pointing to a new Public Comment Forum on a Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS. One hopes it draws responses from more than apprentice netkooks.|
If I wasn't clear in my earlier post, while it makes some sense that Lynn's draft appears within the icann.org/stockholm/ directory on ICANN's server, can anyone explain why Kent Crispin's draft is stored and made public from the same directory? Will ICANN give equal space to Higgs or new.net? Doesn't this imply a similar blessing to the one which Lynn's draft has questionably received?
Methinks new.net is what the current kafuffle is really about. While the ICANN talking heads have steered clear of directly addressing new.net as an 'alt' root, Crispin pulls no such punches.
ICANN isn't worried about DNS instability with two .biz's out there, nor do I think there is much reason to be for most users (in a technical sense, prior use in commerce is another matter). I also don't think they are too concerned about new.net's plugin or repurposed 3LD's (it is outside their mandate anyway).
But if you have some of the US's largest ISP's pointing to new.net's .shop, .law, et cetera, then ICANN can't bring in a TLD of the same name without inducing serious, unpredictable instability in the DNS, and as ICANN wasn't first with the names they can't just blame it on some patsy.
While ICANN takes just less than forever to introduce new TLD's, new.net could conceivably introduce another 20 (or 100) without too much time or effort, meaning ICANN can only fall further behind in the race for the 'best' TLD's. Rubbing their noses in it, .kids, .xxx, travel, and others, which ICANN could have OK'd, have now effectively been taken away from them. Seems to me this puts ICANN in a real pickle, perhaps explaining Crispin's implied threat that if new.net encroaches on ICANN's turf, Verisign can encroach on theirs. Is ICANN's facade beginning to crumble? -g