[ga] Re: anyone notice fallout from this?

[Stephen Griffin <stephen.griffin@rcn.com>]

In the referenced message, Simon Higgs said:
> >ITYM "alternative roots" were the cause of the problem.
> 
> Having written said draft, I can safely say that you are 100% wrong. The 
> cause of the problem is lack of entry into the legacy root. If there was 
> access, there would be no alt.roots. No one would care or bother about 
> alt.roots. End of story. Blaming alt.roots is like blaming the police for 
> criminals.

If there were not multiple roots, would there have been a problem? No.
Hence, the multiple roots (which goes against DNS itself) was the
issue.

You yourself state that if you were able to get your data into the
one true root, there would not have been an issue. This reinforces
that having multiple roots was the issue. The rest is just spin.

> >DNS has but one root. You may not like that root, you may seek to
> >change that root, but it only has 1 root.
> 
> And there lies the current problem. Irresponsible people running around 
> pretending nothing is wrong and ignoring the fragmentation of the DNS, 
> while big corporations are permitted to break the DNS even further.

Fragmentation caused by the introduction of multiple roots, if there
were a single root there would be no fragmentation.

> Best Regards,
> 
> Simon

I, personally, agree that ICANN is a horrible root, so was NSI. The InterNIC
was an ok root, when they actually enforced registration requirements
such as network infrastructure in .net, commercial in .com, and
non-profit/individuals in .org. The likelihood of a hostile-takeover
of the root succeeding is small, hence the attempt of having multiple
roots in perpetuity.

The fact of the matter, however, is that there is a single root, and
has to be for the long-term survival of DNS. Attempting to introduce
competing roots leads to the fragmentation, chaos, and the like. If
_ICANN were not the present one true root_, this paragraph would continue to
apply. All remaining alternative roots would continue to contribute
to the overall instability of the domain naming system.

Therefore, as I said, the alternative roots were the cause of the problem,
as DNS can have only 1 root, much as any shared globally unique resource
can have only one ultimate authority (IANA for addresses, ASNs, as
other examples) for addressing contention.

Whether you (or any group small or large) should be able to gain access
to the roots in a controlled and non-conflicting way, is not under
discussion here. I, personally, feel that controlled access to the roots
to fulfill real needs is advantageous. I don't consider registering
any TLD under the sun as a real need, but that's just me. When it
all shakes down, the access to the one true root, will be managed by
a single authority (which may be comprised of multiple authorities
with a common resolution method).

Cheers,
Stephen
[looking forward to his bounce message, about how dns having a single root
is somehow a lie, and because I support a single root, i'm somehow in
support of ICANN, which is not the case.]

--
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