Re: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] response to response toresponse)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

At 13:53 29.05.2001 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:

>No, we don't quite have a point of agreement yet. It seems that IAB still
>doesn't seem to grasp the fact that it is dealing with a standards
>competition phenomenon, and that ICANN management is hysterical.

Two non-facts in one sentence - ie I don't agree with you on either point.

>Tell me: do you think the integration of wireless communication into a
>single global standard will occur if the GSM proponents insist that
>THEY are the "authoritative" standard and all other technologies
>are "harmful" and will cause incompatibility (with them)?

I certainly know that it is illegal to operate 900 MHz Wavelan cards in 
Europe, because it causes harmful interference with GSM phones; those bands 
have been set aside for GSM usage in Europe.
Similarly, it is illegal to operate 900/1800 MHz band GSM phones in the US, 
since it causes harmful interference with other usages for which those 
bands have been allocated.

But I guess that you did not want to make the point that legal action is 
not only justified, but common, where harmful interference can be demonstrated.

>They would be correct, of course, that the existence of alternate
>technologies will create interoperability problems. But no one is in a
>position to eliminate competing technologies nor should they be.
>How productive would it be to insist that no issues of policy or coordination
>need to be considered?
>
>On the Names Council, Peter de Blanc and I have tried to initiate a
>calm, deliberate, rational exploration of the problem of multiple roots.

Which seems like a good thing, until we start disagreeing on the starting 
points.

>We simply wanted to start by recognising facts: New.net exists,

ok, we agree on that.

>there was a conflcit over .biz,

to put it another way: Leah Gallegos is upset that .biz got allocated in 
the ICANN process that she chose not to participate in. Whether that 
constitutes a conflict or not is in the eye of the beholder.

>  there are problems with the
>implementation of internationalized domain names that is leading
>to separate roots.

No problem has yet been identified where it is clear that separate roots is 
the solution. See the message from CNNIC I forwarded earlier.

>  Our initial phase was consciously constructed to avoid
>statements of hard policy positions and to encourage education and
>understanding of the ramifications of the issue.
>
>The reaction we have got? ICANN and IAB jumping up and down and screaming 
>"I am the authoritative standard by DEFINITION!" "The policy
>is already set! There is nothing to discuss!" "Whoever raises this issue is
>hostile to the stability of the Internet!" Stuart Lynn, who doesn't seem
>to have understood a thing I've written, has publicly written that I am "an
>enthusiastic proponent of abandoning a single root."

Well, aren't you? (only half kidding)
You certainly don't seem to be a proponent of defending it.

>Clearly, the DNSO cannot take the first tiny steps toward policy
>discussion without ICANN management deciding that it already
>knows that the right policy is and ramming it down everyone's throats,
>and it seems to have the active support of the IAB in this. If you
>want points of agreement, work with your IAB colleagues to fix this.

The DNSO, through this forum and others, has been running a discussion for 
a long time. However, neither side seems to be able to convince the other 
about even the most basic facts.

Returning to my original posting:

> >>> Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> 05/29/01 02:55AM >>>
> >Thanks for making it clear that you think a single root will 
> eventually >occur.
> >It is clear that we have agreement even among those who do not want to
> >admit it that there needs to be a way to get to the point where one name
> >has only one resolution in any DNS service.

Do you disagree with my characterization of your opinion?

--
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