[ga] and if we addressed the problem at its real root? (was Re: [ga] Re: Names Council Resolution on Reform)

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

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.
> >Possibly.
>
> >> The point is that ICANN has no right to insist that there be only one 
> root,
> >The protocols require that there be only one root:
> >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2826.txt
>
>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
>likely.)

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.
<quote>
    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
    authority.

    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.
</quote>

2. I fully accept the premises of the ICP-3 document.
http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-3.htm

3. I fully accept the RFC 920, 921, 1591
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/rfc/rfc920.txt
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/rfc/rfc921.txt
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt

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 
Digital Divide.
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.
jfc