RE: [ga-roots] Proposed ICANN Policy

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: owner-ga-roots@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga-roots@dnso.org]On Behalf
|> Of Patrick Corliss
|> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 9:33 PM
|> To: John Charles Broomfield
|> Cc: [ga-roots]
|> Subject: Re: [ga-roots] Proposed ICANN Policy
|>
|>
|> On Tuesday, April 24, 2001 7:23 AM (AEST), John Charles
|> Broomfield wrote:
|>
|> > ICANN (or anyone operating ANY bunch of root-servers -legacy or not-)
|> > has to decide what exactly it is going to consider legitimate enough
to
|> > warrant respect. No, this is NOT "higher than thou", it is just common
sense.
|>
|> Hi John
|>
|> I think most people will agree with the truth of your
|> observations below.
|> What we need to do now, it seems to me, is move on from saying
|> "Yes, there is a problem" to working out whether on not ICANN should
have a
|> policy and, if so, what it should be.
|>
|> > *ALL* of the alternative roots out there have their own rules as to
what
|> > they consider legitimate or not (to an extent). Just blindly saying
that
|> > ANY previously set up TLD *ANYWHERE* in the world is to be respected
|> > is just not good enough.
|>
|> Agreed.  What do you suggest?

The main problem is that if ICANN recognises any of the so called
alternative roots out there, they are under an obligation to recognise them
all.  That would include any mum and pop outfit that is running their own
root nameserver.  I run my own root privately as well.  A lot of businesses
do also.  The majority can not be seen on the Internet and were never
really intended to be.  But if ICANN recognises some, they must recognise
them all.  Otherwise they will have to define just what it is they are
going to recognise and that may be an even bigger can of worms.

|> > The alternative root servers have each and every one of them their own
|> > rules to define collisions and to define what is or not worthy of
respect.
|> > Just saying as a blanket statement that the alternative root servers
do not
|> > have collisions is a falacy.
|>
|> Alternative roots do have collisions (witness New.Net) but they
|> generally work very hard to minimise their occurrence.  It is in
everybody's *best
|> interests* to take that approach.
|>
|> > Of course, they will all claim that my nameservers and my namespace
don't
|> > count as far as their own rules to how they manage their servers. Of
|> > course, they are right, but at the same time they fail to see that
ICANN can
|> > decide what is worthy of respect and what isn't, what merits a claim
to
|> > non-collision and what doesn't. In other words, as far as ICANN is
|> > concerned, there is NO collision. As far as OTHER peoples namespaces
go,
|> > that is their own problem...
|>
|> ICANN might say that.  However, that is a short-sighted approach.
|>
|> > Nothing stops them from continuing to use those addresses as
|> > they wish, but its not something that I would recommend. (I see this
type
|> > of scenario every day by the way, speaks a lot about who sets up their
|> > network).
|>
|> Of course.  That is why we are considering what the policy
|> should be.  It may be that ICANN's policy should simply be along the
lines of:
|>
|> "ICANN adopts compliance with the relevant DNS standards as a general
|> principle.  It recognises that there is a likelihood of collision and/or
|> confusion when root operators do not comply with RFC 1591 which suggests
|> that there should be a "unique root zone*.  ICANN will therefore adopt
|> methods and measures to foster co-operation and compliance within the
|> industry."

Personally, the approach I would suggest is for ICANN to release large
numbers of TLD's and then this issue will be resolved by market forces.  It
is only due to an artificial demand for more name space that has caused
this issue.  If the legacy root name space is increased to cover more TLD's
this problem will not exist.  There may be some consideration given to the
so called alternative roots and their users in such a case.  Again, that
will be a difficult issue to address.  Personally, I would not even go down
that track.

There was only ever supposed to be the one root name space on the Internet.
Any others, call them alternative or anything else, are not
legitimate.MPOO.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html