RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

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

Simon,
>>
>>The main thing I am worried about is that two alt.roots have different

>>name servers for the same TLD.
>>
>>And this I don't like.
>
>I agree. But certain facts of life are here to stay:
>
>1. Alt.roots have been created as a direct result of:
>    a. Network Solutions being granted a for-profit monopoly on the
>       most popular gTLDs (COM/NET/ORG)
>    b. IANA's inability to introduce competition to NSI by way of
>       new registries and TLDs
>    c. The .US registry's total failure to address the .US space
>    d. Internet community dissatisfaction with subsequent processes
>       (i.e. IAHC/gTLD-MoU/ICANN)
>    e. ICANN's obligation to prevent economic harm to NSI from
>       introducing competition
>2. Reserved TLDs (BCP32) exist which immediately create an alt.root
>3. Private corporations use Alternate Roots internally which often
>    duplicates the name space outside of the USG-root - normally to
>    secure the identity of internally used servers
>4. Private Roots exist which for whatever reason do not have a full
>    set of USG-root TLDs
>
>There is no guidance to establish checks and balances in any DNS server
 
>which has been altered from the vanilla USG-root. I'm halfway through 
an 
>Internet Draft to try and ensure that there is a minimum supported 
baseline 
>(the USG root zone). Also I'm addressing discrepancies between RFC2826 
and 
>BCP32, as well as other variations. The point is to provide a common 
>meeting ground and prevent a serious root fragmentation from happening.

>


IMHO the problem is not only consistency of the alt.root with a.root, 
but also consistency between alt1.root and alt2.root, which is, still 
IMHO, much more difficult to achieve.


>>
>>First of all, the intention was not at all to fragment the root and to

>>start an alt.root.
>
>The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It doesn't matter what 
the 
>intent is if the end result is undesirable. Forcing the 7 CORE TLDs 
into 
>the root without accountability to the internet community was 
undesirable. 


Do you have any evidence of the CORE TLDs having been in the root?

Anyway, I guess we have to agree that we disagree on the reading of the 
facts of those days, and it serves no practical purpose to bring this 
subject again in waves.

(I maintain that I am better placed to know the intentions of CORE at 
that time, since I was a member thereof, but it is obvious that there is
 no reason why people should believe me, so we may continue this 
exercise forever)

>Splitting the IANA root into two distinct authorities like the 
>IAHC/gTLD-MoU/CORE folk did was worse than starting a separate 
alt.root. 
>Users of an alt.root make the choice to use the alt.root. Users of the 

>ICANN root are not given that choice, and their queries for the CORE 
TLDs 
>would have failed 50% of the time because the USG-controlled servers 
would 
>not have supported them causing instant root fragmentation.


Exactly.

That's exactly why it has not been attempted, in spite of what some 
believe.

>
>>As for the overseeing role of POC, I will not argue, just notice that 
I
>>was not a POC member at that time.
>>
>>For the record, I spoke against the "experiment" at the CORE Assembly 
in
>>  Washington, DC, that was ongoing when the events happened. I assume 
I
>>would have had the same attitude in POC ;>).
>
>OK, I'll let that slide. ;-)
>


;>)

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