RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 12:54 PM 9/4/00 +0200, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>At 15:22 03/09/2000 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
>>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).
>
>I would not see great harm in an "alternate" root where the owners would 
>automatically vacate within 24 hours any domain that was subsequently 
>added to the ICANN roots; if changes to the baseline automatically meant 
>that the alternate roots were changed to conform, most of the potential 
>harm of alternate roots would be alleviated.

That's the idea. Prior-use has never been successfully challenged in court 
by IANA or ICANN. Prior-use claims have, however, prevented the insertion 
of conflicting TLDs into the IANA root (I'm using the root names 
historically).

Contrary to what past-IAHC membership would have you believe, the first IOD 
lawsuit achieved it's primary purpose in spite of a negative ruling from 
the judge. The suit was designed to prevent IANA from inserting .WEB into 
the root delegated to anyone else but IOD. It was a badly thought out suit, 
which is why it didn't achieve the second goal of .WEB being delegated to 
IOD. It did, however, indicate to the USG that there was a lack of 
consensus in the gTLD-MoU process.

There is no .WEB in the USG root today, but even more importantly, since 
the USG intervened there is no gTLD-MoU. This is especially significant 
because the IOD lawsuit was considered a failure by the gTLD-MoU supporters.

>Neither would I see much point in such a construction.

Think newsgroups. That's exactly what has happened with new newsgroup 
prefixes being created. There was no hierarchy to provide a single point of 
control. It was all down to the responsibility of the local newsgroup admin 
whether or not the carry a newsgroup. Whether it was a good thing or a bad 
thing, it happened.

Someone, somewhere, is/has/will use a TLD outside the USG-root. Even BCP32 
documents valid reasons to do so. A sensible set of guidelines should exist 
to create "rough consensus and running code" and avoid a major root 
fracture. I have a draft half finished. "Real soon now".


Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

--
It's a feature not a bug...

--
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