That's pretty much how ICANN sees it working. That is, they grant FooBar LLC the sole right to create .foo domain names. This, in itself, makes some sense. If more than one organization is out there claiming to have the "authoritative" .foo root server, well, that's not a good situation.
Where ICANN falls down is in it's requirements for who can do what, and in presuming that it's the only body with any right to distribute TLD's in the first place. There are already several bodies who are accepting charters for new TLD's, and most of them don't require that a sponsoring organization fit any criteria other than having a charter. This is how OpenNIC works, for example. You propose a TLD, the membership votes on it, and if you're approved, you can go start accepting registrations.
Yes, when you have one body managing a TLD, there's some risk that that TLD may at some point become unavailable. I say, let the market work it out. That is, it's not ICANN, or OpenNIC's job to determine if the sponsoring organization will be around forever. Only to decide if they have a reasonable charter.
What ICANN should be is a dispute resolution body between the independent TLD systems, and nothing more. We don't need them to manage the DNS system. There's already a perfectly good body of organizations doing what ICANN was supposed to have done years ago. All that's really needed is some kind of impartial panel that independent root services are willing to abide by, to prevent collisions. And even that, as far as I'm concerned, is fairly secondary. If you think a TLD is going to fail, don't use it, it's that simple. The more they try to micromanage this, the less efficient it seems to get.
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]