DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] Re: [ga-roots] Alternate Roots, Naming Systems Coming Under Fire

  • To: ga@dnso.org
  • Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-roots] Alternate Roots, Naming Systems Coming Under Fire
  • From: Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
  • Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:36:38 +0200
  • In-Reply-To: <07a301c0effe$b7d07ec0$b33efea9@hamza>
  • References: <062901c0eff7$02e1ffe0$b33efea9@hamza><15896969318.20010608015142@userfriendly.com>
  • Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org

Dear Patrick,
do not be abused by WXW's tricks. He confuses purposedly the
issues. Talking seriously about anything is a serious work.
Everything has been done on the ga-roots (starting with chosing a
wrong name) to make a joke of this debate. I fully agree with the
NC: multiple roots are what they are: foreign to the iCANN.

Here we should be concerned about the doctrine and the strategy
of iCANN about the DNS name space and more actively of the
iCANN management of the iCANN name space.

The way iCANN translates the single authoritative root into
iCANNese does not affect the other translations in Chinese,
American, French, German, Russian, Viet-Namese, Pacific,
Cinics, Ironic, ORSCese, etc... All are the same single
authoritative root, even if some are less achieved than others.
This is true that iCANN's translation lacks a Technical
Manager to keep it updated. It is likely that, until the position
is filled, the Staff will not dare to include foreign sub-name
space elements as the other roots do. I think this advisable:
you need a certain level of competence to do so (look at
their .biz bug already), all the more than their translation is
still the most widely used to date.


On 11:38 08/06/01, Patrick Corliss said:
>On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 01:51:42 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote
> > Friday, June 08, 2001, 1:42:54 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> >
> > > But at least one ICANN board member, Karl Auerbach, takes a different
> > > on the issue, saying that "there need not be a single uniform namespace
> > > everyone conforms to."
> >
> > Strange, his compadres in the alt.root community on this list don't
> > seem to agree with him.
>Hi William
>Hard to tell, from the quote, who agrees with Karl and who doesn't.  My
>understanding, from previous list discussions, is that most people in the
>alt.root community agree with Karl's paper on Multiple Roots.  I'd ask
>anyone who doesn't to raise their hands.
>Best regards
>Patrick Corlis
>"What I would say to the House Commerce Committee were I invited to testify"
>by Karl Auerbach.
>2.  Multiple Roots are "a good thing"
>It wasn't that many years ago in the United States when there was one big,
>monolithic telephone company.
>It was taken as gospel by many that the stability of the telephone network
>depended on there being one unified, monolithic telephone company.
>We've seen through that.  Today we have a flourishing competitive telephone
>system filled with all kinds of commercial and technical offerings that were
>inconceivable during the days of "Ma Bell".
>We routinely use directory services in a multiplicity of forms -- telephone
>books published by local telephone companies or entrepreneurs, 411 services
>various shapes and forms,  web pages, or even on CD-ROMs (indeed a well
>Supreme Court case involved a telephone directory published on CD-ROM).
>These telephone directories are not published by any unified authority,
>there is
>no regulatory body sitting over them.  And we as consumers are not damaged
>harmed by this.  And the telephone system continues to work just fine.
>Yet, on the Internet there are those who wail and gnash their teeth at the
>thought that the Domain Name System, the Internet's "white pages" might have
>multiple points of entry.
>Indeed, the whole series of documents from NTIA -- including the Green and
>Papers -- and the existence of ICANN is founded on the notion that there is
>one root system for the Domain Name System.
>I assert that those nay-sayers are wrong.
>I assert that just like the telephone system can have multiple publishers of
>telephone directory services, the Internet can have multiple roots to the
>Name System.
>There is no doubt that as a purely technical matter, the Internet can have
>multiple root systems for the DNS.  It has had these for years.
>The question is whether to recognize the value and use of multiple root
>and not foreclose them.
>Let's get a bit more specific.
>When I say "multiple root systems", I mean a regime in which you, or I, or
>anybody can set up a set of computers to serve as a suite of root servers
>the DNS.
>In other words, you, or I, or anybody could establish a group of computers
>operate in parallel with, and not necessarily in administrative coordination
>with, the legacy A-L.root-servers.net computers now operated by NSI, IANA,
>and others.
> >From a technical point of view all that a root server group does is to give
>users a way to find the DNS servers that handle the various Top Level
>(TLDs).  The root servers do not themselves answer queries about what names
>inside the various TLDs.  Those questions are passed on to the TLD servers
>That is a subtle point and a point that is often lost when discussing the
>It bears repeating -- all that a root server does is to answer queries about
>to find a server handling a TLD named in the query.  In other words, a root
>server only answers queries such as "Where do I find a server that contains
>list of names in .com?".
>Now that we know that root servers and root server systems are nothing more
>the doorway through which one enters the Domain System, we can ask this
>What happens when we begin to think of the Domain Name System not as an
>intrinsic core service of the Internet, but rather as an elective service
>can be offered by many providers and among which customers and user select
>on the packages offered by the providers?
>I'll give you a preview of the answer: We end up with a stable Internet with
>loss of reachability.  We get a system of competitive root operators who
>business decisions about what TLDs they want to incorporate into their
>"inventory".  We get rid of questions about "how many TLDs should be
>We don't need complicated ICANN-like quasi-governmental agencies overseeing
>DNS and the Internet.  And we end up with a means for communities of users
>fine tune the view of the Internet Landscape that they want to allow into
>So, you should be asking yourselves, how does this Nirvana come about?
>Imagine each operator of a root server system as a store.  The shelves
>the store's inventory.  In this case the inventory consists of TLDs that the
>root server system knows about.
>Thus, a user of a root server system will perceive a Domain Name name space
>composed of the TLDs in the store (the root server system) that that user
>elected to use.
>Now, I should mention, that when I say "user has elected to use", I don't
>usually mean the end-user directly.  In most cases, the end-user will have
>delegated the choice to that user's ISP or to his or her organizational
>information manager.  Of course, the technically inclined, such as myself,
>tend to make the choice for ourselves.
>How does a root server operator select the inventory of TLDs that it wishes
>offer?  The answer is "whatever satisfies the needs and demands of the
>operator's customer base."
>If we look at this through the eyes of a businessman operating a root server
>system, we realize that there are two elements that the customers will care
>about: TLD coverage and value added services.
>As a general rule, customers of a root server system will act much like
>subscribers to a cable TV system -- they will want as many TLDs (or as many
>channels) as they can get.  This will drive the root server system operators
>include as many viable TLDs as they can into their inventory.
>The net result of all the root system operators following this strategy will
>that they all attempt to trump one another by each including more TLDs.  The
>of this is that all root server operators will incorporate all viable TLDs.
>benefit of this is that the domain names of all people and organizations who
>have registrations in these TLDs will be essentially universally resolvable
>matter which root server system us being used.
>I've used the phrase "viable TLDs" to describe those which are of a
>that most reasonable root system operators would feel that they could
>incorporate that TLD into their inventory without undue risk of problems.
>It is
>easiest to define "viable TLDs" by listing what kind of TLDs would be
>non-viable.  TLDs that are being contested are not very viable.  Thus, if
>two or
>more claimants were offering different versions of a TLD named ".foo", it
>be unlikely that any root system operator would add any version of ".foo" to
>This tends to remove the issue of TLD ownership from the current ICANN
>regulatory framework and place it where it belongs -- in the traditional
>and take world of business and open market economics.
>Since all root server systems will tend to eventually incorporate all viable
>TLDs into their inventory, value added services will tend to become the
>differentiating factor between root server systems.  One might well ask how
>root server system can offer value added services?  It does seem an odd
>at first, but then again, a few years ago, the notion of value added long
>distance telephone services was an odd concept.
>An example of a value added service would be that of filtration -- A root
>system operator may offer a service in which customers who use that root
>will be
>able to have the responses cleaned of any answers that are sources of
>pornographic material.  This could be a valuable tool for communities that
>to tailor their view of the Internet Landscape according to their own
>standards.  And it is a mechanism which allows any member to opt out of the
>community, and its restrictions, simply by selecting another root server
>Yes, there are other ways to achieve the same kind of filtering, but who are
>to say which methods are the most viable?  Indeed, we should be careful not
>dismiss, or worse to foreclose, an area of Internet entrepreneurship simply
>because we don't see the immediate value.
>I'd like to finish this discussion about multiple roots with a few
>Multiple root systems add to the stability of the internet by removing a
>dependence on a single root system for the Domain Name System.
>Multiple root systems eliminate the need to face questions such as "what new
>gTLDs should be added" - multiple root systems permit the marketplace to
>the answer.
>Multiple root systems provide means for inventors and entrepreneurs to
>new ways of packaging DNS servers.  And I've suggested one such extension
>could add a new means for individuals or communities to shield themselves
>the tidal wave of questionable material on the Internet.
>So, why have multiple root systems not evolved?
>One of the reasons is that the existing system has so far worked reasonably
>well, so there has been little pressure.  But there is a very strong
>reason -- those who have advocated or established a multiple root system
>been shunned by the technical community.
>But the biggest reason why it hasn't happened is that ever since the NTIA
>process started, the idea that there could be multiple roots has been swept
>aside with an administrative flick of the wrist and an offhand repetition of
>stale legend: "oh that would never comport with network stability".
>This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>