Re: [ga] a quote from Lynn

[ken stubbs <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

can we take this thread off the main ga list to the ga-roots list where it
belongs ? this issue is clogging up more time-relevent discussions

ken stubbs

Sandy Harris wrote:

> Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > "Universal resolvability means the ability to find the same answer to
> > the same query from anywhere on the public Internet. The position
> > advocated by New.net relies on the fundamentally erroneous assumption
> > that universal resolvability is not an important feature of the DNS.
> >
> > To the contrary, universal resolvability is one of the key design
> > elements of the DNS. If users perceived that the DNS began to produce
> > different results in response to the same question, this would seriously
> > undermine confidence in the reliability of the Internet to users and
> > potential users around the world."
> >
> > Yes I take this a little out of context but I do not like the
> > fundamental position that any system would require only one right answer
> > to the same question.
>
> That's been one of the basic ideas all along. Way back in 1987, RFC 1024
> "DOMAIN NAMES - CONCEPTS AND FACILITIES" states the design goal for the
> DNS system, and the very first one was:
>
> " The primary goal is a consistent name space ...
>
> This is fundamental.
>
> > It sounds like he is saying that users are too
> > stupid to handle a choice therefor we must not give it to them.  No
> > rereading his policy paper; it does not sound like it, it is it.
> >
> > There may be reasons for this policy but to lay it off on the users
> > being to stupid to make alternating choices between roots is wrong both
> > technically and morally.
>
> It's not that the users are stupid or incapable of making choices, the
> issue is that the system should not force them to make such choices.
> Names should map to addresses and resources in a predictable and
> consistent way.
>
> Have you ever used a piece of software where the behaviour you get
> depends on some obscure setting you didn't know about? My example
> would be Word doing various auto-correction and auto-format things
> to text I was writing. Yes, like most users, I'm smart enough to
> dig through menus and documentation and find out to how to fix it,
> but it is still irritating as the devil.
>
> When I type 'www.whatever.biz' into my browser, I don't want the
> result to depend on how some administrator at my ISP has set up
> their DNS server. Yes, I could figure out what was going on and
> complain to the ISP, switch ISPs or set up my own name server if
> I didn't like it. However, I shouldn't have to!
>
> So the question is not whether we need a single consistent namespace,
> but how to build it.
>
> I'd say we do that by accepting the fact that ICANN has been created
> to do this job and given the responsibility for that namespace, then
> trying to make ICANN work as it should. Among the things I'd like to
> push for:
>
> The complex political compromise process during ICANN formation led
> to a board that was to have nine elected at large directors and nine
> from various interest groups. Step one is to achieve that balance.
> (It isn't the balance I'd have chosen -- I'd like to see public
> interest groups like EFF with as many votes as all the business
> constituencies combined -- but it's in the bylaws and better than
> what we have to date.)
>
> Think about remedies for the over-use and over-selling of .com, the
> biggest problem in the current namespace.
> (My first thought is just stop .com registration, but is there a
> better solution?)
>
> Fix the UDRP; see my comments in other threads.
> (I'd like to say scrap it, but doubt that's practical.)
>
> Technically, a TLD is no harder to set up than an SLD. The $50,000
> application fee is absurd. Scrap it. Aim at 100 new TLDs by 2002,
> with cost well under $1000. If it's possible to give the "alternate
> root" people some sort of olive branch in the process, so much the
> better.
> --
> 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