Re: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] response to responsetoresponse)

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

Milton Mueller wrote:

(re-ordering so we can see what he's responding to)

> >>> Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> 05/29/01 02:55AM >>>

> Thanks for making it clear that you think a single root will eventually occur.

One root, or many which co-operate, I'm not sure there's much difference.

> It is clear that we have agreement even among those who do not want to
> admit it that there needs to be a way to get to the point where one name
> has only one resolution in any DNS service.

Yes, that is absolutely necessary.
 
> No, we don't quite have a point of agreement yet. It seems that IAB still
> doesn't seem to grasp the fact that it is dealing with a standards
> competition phenomenon, and that ICANN management is hysterical.

There is no standards competition. The IETF standards that specify how
DNS works are the same for any root. Their design assumes a hierarchy,
which implies only one authoritative public root.

There is some competition over who will provide that service. ICANN have
the advantage of starting off in possession of the root servers, and the
argument that they are running an open community-based process for the
public benefit.

Methinks that argument is highly questionable. As I see it, ICANN is far
too influenced by various commercial interests, deliberately structured
to give those interests unnacceptable levels of influence, and acting
quite contrary to community interests with slimy tricks like keeping
the "board squatters" instead of properly elected directors.

Also, as I see it, they've clearly screwed up by failing to bring new
TLDs into play on anything like an appropriate schedule, continuing
the overuse of .com far beyond reason.

That said, I don't see the "alternate root" folks offerring anything that
looks to me even vaguely like a plausible alternative. To do that, they'd
have to suggest some plausible alternate way of managing the namespace in
an open community-based process for the public benefit. Granted, ICANN is
not doing that very well, but I see no evidence the others should be
expected to do it better.

> Tell me: do you think the integration of wireless communication into a
> single global standard will occur if the GSM proponents insist that
> THEY are the "authoritative" standard ...

If you want an analogy with wireless, consider assignment of phone numbers
and in particular, of country codes as the analog of TLDs. Conflicts there
must be avaoided, either by having some central authority assign the codes
or by ensuring that all players co-operate on the assignments.

> They would be correct, of course, that the existence of alternate
> technologies will create interoperability problems. But no one is
> in a position to eliminate competing technologies nor should they
> be.
--
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