[ga] and if we addressed the problem at its real root? (was Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform)
At 10:55 05/08/02, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:14:10 -0700, you wrote:
> >> If the Chinese are half as smart as I usually give them credit for, what
> >> they will do is insist on two roots and an interoperability treaty.
> >> The point is that ICANN has no right to insist that there be only one
> >The protocols require that there be only one root:
>Do Chinese have a law that recognizes IETF's authority to require that
>there be only one root? (Not that I like the "national roots" approach
>- but, given ICANN's "evolution", it seems to me more and more
Dear Sandy and Vittorio,
you are among the most reasonable socio/technical oriented folks on the GA
list. Please do not resume the alt(sic)root sterile discussion.
But may be could we try to address at last the global management of the
global namespace and the share of the ICANN in it. This is what the DNSO is
first about. I tried to initiate this debate as a grown boys debate last
year but it was confused with the alt(sic)roots non-issue.
May I try to initiate a positive discussion on the subject. Everyone knows
that I am operating a small experimental root, so no one can think I am
biased when I say this as a starter;
1. I fully accept the RFC 2826 main text. I quote it here so it is clear.
To remain a global network, the Internet requires the existence of a
globally unique public name space. The DNS name space is a
hierarchical name space derived from a single, globally unique root.
This is a technical constraint inherent in the design of the DNS.
Therefore it is not technically feasible for there to be more than
one root in the public DNS. That one root must be supported by a set
of coordinated root servers administered by a unique naming
Put simply, deploying multiple public DNS roots would raise a very
strong possibility that users of different ISPs who click on the same
link on a web page could end up at different destinations, against
the will of the web page designers.
2. I fully accept the premises of the ICP-3 document.
3. I fully accept the RFC 920, 921, 1591
But I say that the conclusions draft by most of the IETF and ICANN people
and by ICP-3 are not appropriate, because they do read not them in plain
real English, but in an Internet centric language. This is what is to be
analyzed and appropriately worked on.
This is like a baby which considers its family as the entire world (this
image is for understanding, it does not imply any critic and shows the way
out through a permitted normal mental growth to accompany the physical growth).
The Internet has two options. Either to evolve or to be replaced. From late
70s to mid80s the leading technology was Tymnet. Until late 90s it was ISO.
Now it is Internet. By far Internet has not reached worldwide the level of
the Minitel in France. So we see there is room, and possible challenges (we
only are in 02)
The infrastructure of the Internet is three folded. It must develop in
these three directions.
1. hardware. The standard IP ARPA addressing is evolving into IPv6. It
still has to match other addressing schemes to become an Inter Network
Technologies (Vint's founding idea).
2. software. This is the DNS systems and protocols. IMHO there is some
urgency for it to evolve into DNS.2. We are a few starting working on an
experimental (fully ICP-3 compliant) open project in that direction (I
documented it on the ALSC): if you are interested please let me know). But
there is first a need for a doctrine frame by the DNSO.
3. brainware. These are the ways the people [are made to/wants to] use the
network. This includes iDNs support, keywords, menus, access and search
engines, etc. I name them generically DNS+ (extended).
For that we need the support of everyone, operators, developers and users.
As I said, what the Internet Community lacks from the very beginning is to
understand there is a real world outside. This is what I name "get real" (I
saw that Esther I joined the motto).
Their approach is totally understandable: the Internet is a community
intranet. It went an extranet in 1984/85 but it never became yet an open
network in its designers and administrators minds. We fight Stuart,
Alejandro, BoD people, etc. in here: but these people have no public common
carrier experience (Vint has one) and they are backed by RFCs which lack
interest in that "ITU area".
There would be no @large issue, no.ZA affair, no ccTLD unclear relations,
no contract strategy, no ICANN problem (there might be others :-) would the
RFC 920 quote the public network constraints it respects, would the RFC 921
explain the way to access the network through the ITU open "other systems",
would the RFC 1591 dedicate one or two paragraphs to the nature of the LIC
in reference to the telecommunications services (lower layers) and to the
society and the local law (upper layers).
We will never avoid that debate. So we may continue to argue over details,
ad hominem issues, personal feelings ... and let others take over. As Mike
and Stuart have perfectly felt it, if we cannot address that issue now, by
our own, the Govs will step over to put some order. My feeling is that they
will not do it in our best way because they will use the ITU and the ITU
misses the ICANN as ITU-I and because it will take a lot of time while
technologically we run against MS and the clock.
So the question is simple. Will we DO it now (not to blablabla) or will
THEY do it from the aftermath of Shanghai?
Who are the "they"? Just think that:
Hardware is also where money will ultimately be made: the problem here is
Software and operations are also where powers come from: the problem here
is Digital Control.
Brainware is also where are influences : the problem here is Digital Exposure.