Re: [ga] Roberto: please let us seriously work together and stoppsalming
I point out that every application on the Internet, which includes every
node on the net and every software applications one each node [which by the
way out numbers people on the net] is designed for and expects a single
There is a statisticly insifigant amount of applications that understand
what to do with two different answers to the same question of what is the
A record for www.icann.org
Since there is no technical capability for dealing with different answers
at the application level I suggest that it is the applications that need
to be considered along with the humans on the net when formulating an
answer to how alternative roots are understood on the network.
It is well understood that changing the applications on the net to add an
"alternate" capability would take at least 20 years to become the dominate
position on a significant number of nodes on the net and that engineering
an "alternate capability" is difficult and should not be undertaken by the
light hearted or greedy.
In short, an applications perspective must be considered with the human
perspective and that is going to take many years to propagate, so be
careful what you ask for, for if you get it we have a LONG road until it
will work with any reliability. And if stability is in question you need
the buy in from the software development and operating systems
communities before anything reliable and stable can be deployed.
Basicly expect this question to be resolved sometime within the lifetime
of your children.
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Since you ask for my comment, I will repeat what I already submitted to the
> ICANN Board yesterday (as comment, that has not been read), which is:
> >Good morning.
> >IMHO, alt-roots is a system that started as alternative to the then IANA
> >root system, and still is.
> >The two systems are natural competitors, and the consumers will choose
> >which approach they like better.
> >Incidentally, to be best suited to compete, ICANN has to be open to include
> >new TLDs in its root as market requires.
> >I would ask ICANN to give a clear indication to business, other market
> >forces and all stakeholders on these two points:
> >- ICANN will not merge its root with any other system;
> >- ICANN will allow new TLDs if market requires.
> >Thanks for your attention.
> The rationale is that the non-IANA roots started as alternative to the IANA
> root system, and there is no reason to change this approach now. The only
> thing that is needed (as it was also obvious from the comment by Tucows) is
> that the operators in the market, and generally the stakeholders, need a
> clear indication from ICANN on what its strategy is.
> Hence my recommendation to issue a statement with the two points above.
> To further discuss the matter will serve no useful purpose, because neither
> ICANN nor the IETF/IAB, which provided the theoretical foundation for the
> policy position, are likely to change their minds soon, and any lack of
> clear indication will leave the stakeholders in the uncertainity (and they
> do not like uncertainity - it is the worst thing for planning).
> >From: Jefsey Morfin <email@example.com>
> >To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >CC: email@example.com
> >Subject: Re: [ga] Roberto: please let us seriously work together and stop
> >Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 12:54:41 +0200
> >Dear Roberto,
> >On 01:44 04/06/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
> >>So, I agree that ICANN's view is clear. And moreover, it did not change in
> >>Can the same be said about alt-root?
> >The alt-root gang is a fancy of yours. There is a real world with various
> >positions and understandings. I known what Pacific Root, what ORSC root is,
> >what IRON, what CINICS are, etc... but I do not know any "alt.root", the
> >word "alternative" being a word I personally find hurting unless applied to
> >every one. There are - as everywhere - alternative commercial propositions:
> >this is life and competition. By historical order - I am in this for 30
> >years now - the iCANN proposition is one of the latest alternative
> >proposed. And one of the most exclusive ones.
> >The inclusive, open, etc..., any word you want to give it, is the result of
> >a technical logical analysis open to all and you are more than welcome to
> >share. Simon Higgs produced an IETF document of quality I object on some
> >points as unclear to me and not systematic enough IMHO. Instead of psalming
> >the same irrelevant things, why not to work seriously on the matter. Your
> >comments and experience would be quite appreciated. Otherwise once the DNS
> >Name Space theory and consequent management rules have taken full shape, do
> >not come and say one did not take your point of view into consideration.
> >I certainly accept that Danny's denial of a serious dialog on the matter
> >does not help: may I recall you that I documented many reasons - and not
> >only the so called alt.root which are actually external to the iCANN - for
> >the GA to work through a dedicated ML on a document proposing the NC the
> >creation of a formal WG on the Inclusive Name Space Management. Would we
> >have followed that method we would not have today the opposition between
> >CEO and NC, we would have clarified many issues and saved a lot of time in
> >Stockholm due to the still ill understood the similarities of the .biz,
> >New.net, IDN, ccTLDs questions. They all belong to a missing consistent
> >technical, legal, political, commercial Name Space strategy by the iCANN.
> >From then on, let propose a reshape of the RFC 1591 taking also into
> >account the IP addressing plan - as any discussion concerning the Name
> >Space level not taking into account the underlying Address level is of no
> >interest. And let us know/maybe help where the world goes.
> >Please document your technical objections. My pleasure to copy you my mail
> >to Simon Higgs if you wish. Let become serious about this issue.
> >PS. world@wide has the DN rfc1591.org. Why not to use it to host a full
> >joint review with agenda, working frame and method, documented positions
> >links to support discussions, etc.... and a firm initial commitment from
> >anyone participating that we work ahead not dispute back and that every
> >position will be respected and investigated without arrogance and with
> >logic. You know far better than me about Chairing such a work: why would
> >you not take it with Harald (I cannot be more open minded)?
> >This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> >Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html