CircleID

I'm not sure what everyone expects when 92% of the root server system is US controlled and not as designated by ICANN. Couple that with a large amount of ccTLD riding on top of root infrastructure, and you have domination. That domination is not driven by the USG or ICANN.

Having some authority that keeps a master copy of the list of TLDs and handles nameserver updates to the root zone file, oversees the technical stability of the root servers, etc is a very good thing to have and thats what ICANN was designed for.

The main point that the Inclusive Namespace community has been making has always been not that we need more than one root, but that there should be no barriers to entry into the industry. There are thousands of TLDs out there and they should all just be entered into the root. In the case of collisions, let the courts determine who wins. Thats what courts are for.

There have been many people disenfrancised by ICANN, and some nations feel that they have been as well. Its not just the TLD owners, but many others who do not like ICANNs closed process in which they have very little say.

Many people complain that other root networks will fragment the namespace and that there should be the "one" true root.

Most people have no problem with "one" as long as all stakeholders in the namespace have a say at how the "one" is operated. Is it an organization that is operated in a bottom-up, consensus-driven, democratic manner (Like ICANN was supposed to be), allowing all of the stakeholders to have a say, or is it a closed "star-chamber" monopoly-supporting politburo that shuts out democratic decision-making in order to limit market participating to a chosen few in order to support their monopoly (Like ICANN actually HAS BECOME)?

It wouldn't be so bad if ICANN stuck to their original purpose: Being management of the technical levers of the internet. This would not include DECIDING what TLDs got added or not - ADD THEM ALL and let the market choose winners and losers and let the courts decide about collisions. ICANN was never supposed to be the decider of what gets into the root zone file. To do so involved policy decisions and if you are making policy decisions that affect people's lives and businesses, it had damn well better be in a democratic and open fashion, otheriwise it is tyrrany.

That is our argument in the Inclusive Namespace, not that we really need more than one root. The INS roots are there out of neccessity because the TLD owners that have been frozen out of the process need infrastructure to support them, and thus organizations like ORSC and Public-root were created.