RE: Root [Was: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member]

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

Roeland,

I still think that we are talking about two different things, here, 
because if there are in the world two TLD Registries that manage the 
same TLD string, thinking that they are the authoritative one, the root 
server managers have the option of choosing one or the other. Eventually
, not all will choose the same.

Anyway, I give up.

Since there may be only four or five of us still interested in pursuing 
the matter, and hundreds of others held hostage of this conversation, I 
propose we continue it in Marina del Rey next November, drinking the 
beer I missed a couple of years ago not having been able to participate 
in the "California meeting" with Esther.

Regards
Roberto

>Hello Roberto,
>
>To answer this modified question. MHSC has automated process in place 
to
>fetch the legacy root-zone intact and incorporates TLDs from the ORSC
>root-zone automatically and then incorporates MHSC TLDs as the last
>step. I believe that is what Richard does manually, for the ORSC. At 
the
>moment, there are no known remaining conflicts.
>
>Currently in development, at MHSC, is to feed all this data into an
>Oracle database and auto-generate the MHSC root-zone and whois registry

>data (services pending).
>
>The ORSC has an infomal conflict resolution mechanism in place that was

>last used to resolve the conflict in SYS. It worked admirably, ask
>Jefsey for details. All involved parties were satisfied.
>
>If you were to ask me if I thought that this would scale, I would have
>to answer in the negative. There is a critical process that is 
currently
>not automated (the ORSC root-zone creation process, TINC has a similar
>problem). However, this is a problem with well-known solutions, it
>mainly requires implementation.
>
>I am worried about the wrong-headedness of certain parties to ignore 
the
>ORSC efforts, as being irrelevant. ICANN could create a conflict in WEB

>or SYS, for example, and refuse to resolve/negotiate the conflict,
>leaning on apparent authority. The problem is that this authority does
>not resolve in law, international or otherwise. This could cause a
>fracture in the legacy root-zone that would end up in US Federal court,

>with USG/DOC/NTIA/ICANN on the losing end. Counter to what some may
>deperately want to believe, MHSC does not desire such an outcome and is

>the main reason that MHSC has participated, to the extent it has, in 
the
>ICANN process.
>
>Please consider this; Contrary to what we are taught from childhood, it

>does not require two to create a conflict. Rather the reverse, it
>requires two to create peace (the conflict is inherent), with
>willingness to compromise ON BOTH SIDES. If either party refuses to
>negotiate/compromise, in good faith, then the remaining party has only
>two choices, fight or capitulate. ICANN is not strong anough to force
>capitulation, IMHO. Therefore, in order to prevent a fight (and
>resultant root-zone fracture) ICANN must come to terms with what some
>call the alternate roots. This is a classic three-corner problem with
>the third corner absent.
>
>---
>R O E L A N D  M .  J .  M E Y E R
>CEO, Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
>An eCommerce and eBusiness practice
>providing products and services for the Internet.
>Tel: (925)373-3954
>Fax: (925)373-9781
>Cell: (925)352-3615
>
>
>
>
>> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto.gaetano@voila.fr]
>> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 12:18 PM
>> 
>> Roeland,
>> 
>> This is how I understood Harald's message.
>> WHen he sais "domain" he means "TLD".
>> If ICANN delegates a TLD that is already included in an 
>> alt.root, would 
>> the root operator switch within 24H to be consistent with the a.root.

>> 
>> Which is still something, but I maintain that it does not solve the 
>> problem of different alt.roots pointing to different TLD root servers
 
>> for the same TLD.
>> 
>> Roberto
>> 
>> 
>> >Harald,
>> >
>> >You are confusing TLD root servers with root-zone servers here.
>> >Root-zone servers only answer for the root-zone and redirect TLD 
>> queries
>> >to TLD root servers, which only the TLD registry can run. Which is
>> >precisely what root-zone servers should do. As a result, "of 
course"!
>> >None of us, using ORSC root-zone, resolve for any other TLD 
>> but our own
>> 
>> >(if we even have one) and we will point to other TLD root servers, 
as
>> >well as the legacy TLD root servers (firewalls permitting).
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:Harald@Alvestrand.no]
>> >> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 3:55 AM
>> >> To: Simon Higgs; roberto.gaetano@voila.fr
>> >> Cc: ga@dnso.org
>> >> Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 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.
>> >> 
>> >> Neither would I see much point in such a construction.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> --
>> >> 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
>> >> 
>> >--
>> >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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> --
>> 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
>> 
>--
>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
>
>
>
>
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html