RE: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

[Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>]

At 08:24 PM 4/11/2001, JandL wrote:
>Once more, you don't get it. ICANN is tasked with maintaining the
>stability of the internet.  Cooperating with the Internet community
>to strive toward a unified name space (not namespaces) fall within
>that role.

So whenever someone shows up and stakes an independent claim, we should 
appease them, on the claim that it is important for the stability of the 
Internet?

You might want to study a bit of history concerning the events leading up 
to World War II in Europe.


>You seem to foster the notion that the Internet is made
>up of fragmented name spaces which is not the case.

Let's see.  My view is that we should ignore the independents; yours is 
that we should not.

So explain to me which of us is worried about namespace fragmentation.


>It is a network of networks, all using the same DNS.

Those folks who initiated independent roots are not using "the same DNS".

By definition they have created a separate DNS.

It does not matter that some have chosen to operate as a superset of the 
IANA/ICANN namespace...  In fact that "superset" claim is a myth, as is 
clearly being demonstrated by efforts to limit the choices made for the 
IANA/ICANN namespace.


>You used the word namespaces - plural.  The  DNS is the DNS is the DNS is 
>the DNS.

The IANA/ICANN DNS is defined by one namespace, yes.  However people are 
free to create their own namespaces and operate their own DNS(es).  In fact 
this is done all the time in private networks and it is fine to do it.

The problem is when someone defines an independent namespace and later 
claims that some other namespace is required -- retroactively -- to 
coordinate with it.


>I see no reason for ICANN to be any different from any other root in
>seeking to provide a collision free name space in cooperation with all
>TLD holders.

You don't?  Well, I encourage you to learn more about the history of the 
different namespaces, including the original one...IANA/ICANN's.


>The simple fact that ICANN believes as you espouse is a hurdle that must 
>be overcome.

The simple fact is that efforts to coerce ICANN to retroactively 
incorporate rogue activities is a hurdle we must ignore.


>No one asked for business to crop up as a result of the railroad either.

My, my.  You really DO need to learn a bit of history.


>However, the railroad had to cooperate with the towns and businesses that 
>grew up around it.

The railroad OWNED most of those towns.  Where the railroads made most of 
their money was from their rights of way on either side of the tracks.


>In this case, ICANN was created at the direction of the US Government

It was created at the direction of IANA.  The US government then reviewed 
the action.


>  under contract and oversight of the US Government.  They have an 
> agreement to perform in a certain manner.  They have broken that 
> agreement in many ways.

Ahh, well.  In that case the USG will take away its authority, shortly, 
won't they?

Oops.  Doesn't look like that is happening.  Gosh.  Maybe you assessment is 
wrong.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

--
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