Re: [ga] Re: DNS/ICANN understanding

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

Jefsey,

I will only object to the unique/multiple root argumentation, without 
entering into all other details of your post.

Our disagreement is focused on two points.
First, "Does/doesn't a unique (common) root removs navigation rights";
Second, "which of the two equation [global=public] and [global=public+
extended] is correct".

About the first point, you correctly pointed out that RFC 2826 does not 
preclude <private> networks to run with their <private> root.
Therefore, if the <private> networks are able to make their offer 
attractive to the public, nothing prevents them to have customers 
joining. The freedom of choice of an individual to join whatever 
alternative the market offers is one thing, the obligation of a common 
(or global) structure to include in the common services that offer is a 
different thing.
As pointed out in the same RFC, the market will be puzzled in a 
situation in which typing an URL you reach different sites, depending on
 how your PC is configured (or the choice of your ISP). This will kill e
-commerce. As I always say, it is like if you dial a phone number, and 
you reach different people, depending on how your telephone is 
configured.

Moreover, the example you make in support of your argumentation:

>
>I may want to subscribe to a [family] DNS root which removed all the 
adult 
>and gambling sites, or to a [business] DNS root which also removed all 
the 
>family related sites, replacing by little flowers, or NASDAQ reports. 
These 
>DNS roots are value added DNS roots.


First of all, I will be happy to know how a root server operator can 
remove sites of adult content.
But besides this, what prevents you from doing this?


>
>Value added DNS services is a coming industry, with broad ambitions. 
The 
>alternative root pionneering time will probably be over very soon as 
>alternative evoluates towards super (cf. infra).


Correct.
But value added services will build their offer, and they will be 
succesfull up to the extent that they will be able to convince 
subscribers.
But this will remain what it is: a private service.
What you ask is that they will have the same status as the public/common
 service. Which is a different thing, and has nothing to do with freedom
 of choice.



To the second point, extended services.

Extended services are "private" for their very nature.
The scheme you suggest, i.e. to use the "private" (="added value") 
network, and to use the "public" (="common") is perfectly legitimate, 
and is already in use by the ISPs that work with the alternate root 
server operators.
The problem is that the way they resolve the names is "private". Another
 "private investor" may provide another value added system that will 
resolve the same names in a different way.
In other words, this is the exact opposite of "global", it is "very 
local indeed"!

Back to the telephone analogy, in my company we have a PABX. If we want 
to connect to the global (pardon, the public) STN, we dial a code then 
the global (well, public) E164 number. OTOH, if I want to speak to my 
boss, I dial 1234.
This is "very local indeed", because in my previous company, while to 
get an external number the provcedure was the same, dialling 1234 would 
have brought me to a different person.
Having PABXes for managing private STN is fine, but we can never make 
the assumption that the number of our boss, no matter how important the 
boss, will have the same global visibility as an E164 number.

My bottom line? The DN under a TLD that is in the a.root is "global" 
like an E164 phone number. DNs under a TLD that is in an alternate root 
is not "illegal" at all, but will have the same visibility that an 
extension number will have: local, to the customers of the PABX.


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