What appears as a rational statement in Document 50‐E of WCIT-12 does set the stage to prohibit by the rule of law alternative roots or ShofarDomain’s rootless technology.  History shows that simple statements given time can be the foundation for future laws or interpretations that go well beyond the original meaning.  Paragraph 3.5 is an example of this.

31A 3.5 Member States [shall endeavor to | should] ensure that international telecommunications [naming,] numbering, [addressing and identification] resources specified in the ITU‐T Recommendations [and which fall within their jurisdiction] are used only by the assignees and only for the purposes for which they were assigned; and that unassigned resources are not used.

What can easily be derived from this is that “naming”, which includes domain names, must only be used by those who own the names.  This sounds good thus far.  Using someone else’s property is theft.  The force of law in response to theft is a function of the state.

We start to get a little grey when we add “only for the purposes for which they were assigned”.  This should give us some pause to ensure that we are not opening the door to restricting us from changing the focus of our domain name.  This is weak, but time and bureaucrats’ intentions make the weak strong.

The greatest concern is the last phrase “that unassigned resources are not used”.  It is not too much of a stretch to interpret this as a state should use the force of law to prohibit any domain outside of ICANN’s sanctioning.  Alternative roots and ShofarDomain’s rootless system are clearly “unassigned” from the perspective of ICANN.

ShofarDomain uses technology to break the monopoly control of ICANN, alternative roots, and itself.  This technology driven solution trumps ICANN’s aura based policy.  The rule of law, when backed by the force of arms, can crush technology or freedom.  Perhaps the wording and intent needs to be clarified.