I actually wonder why they need a "director" of something that probably should have been managed more like an RFC system. It's not like there has been much proven benefit from ICANN's oversight so far.
Imagine if it had been community-driven. For instance, someone proposes ".foobar" as a domain root. Various contributors then submit comments on the proposal, including suggestions on established groups that ought to manage that domain and what the limitations are on sites in the domain. Refinements are made (perhaps someone observes that ".foo" would be a term that is recognizable in more countries and something that avoids offending anyone). Finally a reasonable consensus is reached that having ".foo" is actually more valuable than not having it, and its guidelines are made public under "DNS RFC #613" or whatever. If that process can work for widespread things like protocols it can definitely work for deciding which domain roots are sensible. We don't need an ICANN.
Comments
I actually wonder why they need a "director" of something that probably should have been managed more like an RFC system. It's not like there has been much proven benefit from ICANN's oversight so far.
Imagine if it had been community-driven. For instance, someone proposes ".foobar" as a domain root. Various contributors then submit comments on the proposal, including suggestions on established groups that ought to manage that domain and what the limitations are on sites in the domain. Refinements are made (perhaps someone observes that ".foo" would be a term that is recognizable in more countries and something that avoids offending anyone). Finally a reasonable consensus is reached that having ".foo" is actually more valuable than not having it, and its guidelines are made public under "DNS RFC #613" or whatever. If that process can work for widespread things like protocols it can definitely work for deciding which domain roots are sensible. We don't need an ICANN.