[ga-roots] Re: On why the root is not open and root fragmentation is a consequence

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 01:21 PM 5/14/01 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>At 11:32 12.05.2001 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
>>Second misconception. There is no shortage of TLDs. There's an 
>>artificially manufactured scarcity. Big difference. Root fracture is a 
>>natural consequence of artificial scarcity. The Internet routes around 
>>failure. Take away the artificial scarcity, put all the TLDs requested 
>>since 1995 into the USG root, and the problem goes away.
>
>TECHNICALLY, the DNS can easily support several hundred names in the root 
>zone - because we are doing that now.
>TECHNICALLY, we have grave doubts that it can support a million names in 
>the root zone with an adequate stability for the root zone service. (The 
>problem is rate of change for stability)
>
>So, we the TECHNICAL people have passed a slip to the POLITICAL/OPERATIVE 
>community saying "more than a hundred but less than a million, please".

I agree that there isn't a demand for a million TLDs today. The demand is 
still under 1000 (including Name.Space, New.Net, etc.), and that is based 
upon ORSC's "collision-avoidance" research. So what if it's 2000 or 5000? 
It's a zone file. It works exactly the same way all the other zone files do.

Vint Cerf stated on CNN recently that no new TLDs have been introduced in 
the last 10 years, justifying ICANN is able to handle "a very difficult and 
complex task". It's simply not true. The *FACTS* are really simple. The 
correct figures, according to NSI are the following. There were 30 
country-code TLDs added in 1995, 31 added in 1996, 47 added in 1997, 2 
added in 1998, 1 in 1999. There have, in fact, been well over 100 ccTLDs 
added to the U.S. Government root in the last five years.

So we have an average growth rate of 20+ new TLDs per year over the last 
five years. The 47 added in 1997 did not destabilize the Internet. Nobody 
really noticed as it was also a high growth year for all the other TLDs. So 
if we raise the bar and add 50 per year, it means the current ICANN 
applications plus the Draft Postel and gTLD-MOU TLDs can all be included - 
based upon objective criteria that has existed since 1996. So applying 
*EQUITABLE* rules to all these TLD applications is entirely possible.

The ORSC Root has added all of the above ccTLDs, and well over 100 
additional gTLDs to what was the IANA root, making it 100% compatible with 
the current U.S. Government root, and yet serving an Inclusive Name Space 
at the same time. This is a perfectly good example of exactly what ICANN 
has failed to do, so the Internet chooses to route around ICANN and set up 
similar models.

>As .com has proved, an open zone will have more than a million entries.

You're still not doing your homework properly. Saying "the root = .COM" is 
a totally bogus argument. What is the average number of 2LDs across all 
TLDs? Given that .ARPA has two 2LDs (delegated at the root!) and .INT has 
about 50 2LDs. Also, .US is free (read "open") and look at what a total 
screw-up that is. People have paid good money to avoid it. Have we learnt 
anything yet? Obviously not.

>So there has to be a rule; some will get it, some will not.

Like I've already said, objective criteria has existed since 1996 (1994 if 
you also count RFC1591), so applying *EQUITABLE* rules to *all* TLD 
applications is entirely possible. Not special interests. Not big corporate 
interests. Not the personal profiteers like the ICANN board members who has 
the recuse themselves during the last ICANN TLD application process.

>The POLITICAL community, knowing full well that deleting a TLD from the 
>root is probably going to be impossible, went through the WG-B process, 
>and came up with the "five to ten" recommendation.

Check your facts (homework!). It was WG-C. And the NC ignored pretty much 
everything. Yet another central point of failure.

The Internet community is continuing to route around the damage in a manner 
consistent with a true consensus. If you choose to ignore that consensus, 
then it will gain critical mass, and the root will simply fragment. Game 
over. If you choose to apply RFC1591 instead, then you have a lot of work 
ahead (a lot of it has already been done by the ORSC), but it will be 
productive and fruitful and the Internet will prosper.

ICANN has never done this before. We have.


Best Regards,

Simon

--
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and
then you win. And once you have won, they join you." - Mahatma Gandhi

--
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