[ga-roots] response to Crispin Internet-draft

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>]

Analysis of the Crispin Internet-draft.

The draft is based on two assumptions, both easily questioned.

One: "I implicitly postulate that multiple roots exist 
and are in heavy use and that the Internet Corporation 
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has somehow 
approved of them." 

That assumption is self-contradictory. If ICANN 
has "approved" of multiple roots, why would it not 
coordinate the contents of its root zone file with 
them? What would "approval" consist of, if not some 
kind of coordination or avoidance of duplication? 

Two: he assumes that multiple roots would not converge 
on a coordinated zone file. In other words, his very 
definition of a "multiple root regime" assumes that 
registries, Internet service providers, and consumers 
will heedlessly create and buy conflicting names in a 
fragmented name space. 

That assumption is inconsistent with what we
know about the the economics of standards competition, 
and for the most part is contradicted by the current 
behavior of alternate root operators.

Once these two assumptions are made, multiple roots 
are equated with a *completely uncoordinated* root 
zone file. Crispin uses most of the draft telling us 
how horrible name collisions and uncoordinated zone 
files are. But as far as I know, no person advocates 
name collisions (except perhaps the Board members who 
selected .BIZ, but that's another story).

In short, the whole draft is an enthusiastic whacking 
of a straw man.  

But the most fundamental problem with this draft is 
that, like RFC 2826, it diverts our attention from the 
real policy issues we face. 

The issue we face is not: are alternate roots "good" 
or "harmful"?

Alternate roots do in fact exist. No one can prevent
them from existing, because te selection of a root
server to point to is a voluntary act by ISPs and
end-user client software. 

So in reality, the question we need to answer is: 
if alternate roots do exist, how should ICANN relate to them? 

If ICANN "endorses" other roots, then it would of 
course coordinate its TLD selections with them, and 
there would be fewer if any name collisions. 

If ICANN doesn't "endorse" other roots, then.....then
what? Should it adopt TLDs that conflict with ones 
publicly in use by alternate root servers? If, like 
Crispin, one purports to be an enemy of fragmentation 
and name collisions, the answer should be NO. The 
other alternative is to ignore other roots and pretend 
they don't exist. That may be easy to do if they are 
small and helpless, but what if they get big? At some 
point, one has to consider coordination.

Or is Crispin saying is that he wants ICANN, or
someone, to make it illegal to run an alternate root? 
This would involve regulating the configuration of
every computer connected to the Internet, and defining 
what technology and service provider everyone had to 
use. It would be like a law dictating that everyone 
had to use the same computer operating system to 
avoid "instability." To me, that cure sounds worse 
than the disease. But at this stage we need to
concentrate on identifying facts and defining options, 
not on making normative judgments.

What to do about multiple roots is an important, 
serious question. Crispin's draft is too focused on demonizing alternative roots to contribute any 
substantive answers.

It is an excellent example of how the DNSO should
NOT approach the multiple roots issue. 

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html