Dima,
This conversation is rapidly drifting away from what I consider
appropriate for the IETF list, so this is likely to be my last
posting on the subject.
In a number of ways, I believe that ICANN has already failed and
did so several years ago. If one can judge from the observation
that they are still in business, the Internet community
(whatever that means) either doesn't care, believes that they
(failures and all) are a better option than any of the other
ideas that have been seriously proposed, or is ineffectual in
doing anything about it.
But, from my point of view at least, ICANN's initiating protocol
development would almost certain be an even bigger failure...
and lead to yet bigger ones.
So I'm not certain I understand what you are talking about. In
particular (and going back to my understanding of Dave's
question), rather than pushing back on TLDs whose operators it
does not like or that have misbehaved in important ways (such as
by violating standards about what can be registered), I believe
it has been excessively deferential to them and especially to
ccTLDs associated with large and/or powerful countries.
I think we have a "safe and reliable distributed name system",
one that has the advantage of being widely deployed and very
heavily used in practice. I don't believe it is adequate for
many things people "want to do", in some cases because the
desires are unrealistic and in others because it is just the
wrong technology, but that is different from whether it is (at
least relatively) safe and reliable. As far as the need to
"satisfy all actors and interested parties", I think that is
impossible, if only because there are observably multiple actors
out there who will not be satisfied with any system of which
they are not in charge, in many cases exclusively so. As long
as that is a requirement, they are not all going to be satisfied.
best,
john
--On Friday, January 5, 2018 02:51 +0300 Dmitry Burkov
<dburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John,
>
> Icann will failed if they will continue their current
> approach.
>
> ICANN works as typical corporation now and interested in
> status quo.
>
> I never expected that ICANN can initiate development which
> will allow to migrate to really distributed system.
>
> It is against their basic interests.
>
> Another point - if we will agree that it is a real issue that
> can affect all of us - we should try to find a design which
> can satisfy all actors and interested parties to provide safe
> and reliable distributed name system.
>