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

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

A Standards Competition between Roots was my understanding. Maybe I'm just
reading too many lists and I'm mistaken. A likely analogy for the
competition between roots would be the standards competition between VHS and
Beta awhile back. Which one was better? Beta. Which one won consumer
support? VHS.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: <ga-roots@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 2:26 AM
Subject: Re: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] response to
responsetoresponse)


> Sandy and all,
>
> Sandy Harris wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>   Interesting view!  I am aghast as to how you arrived at this method of
> thinking!
>
> >
> >
> > > 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.
>
>   Bad and incorrect assumptions as often made from the IETF.  I also
> don't know what "Standards" to which you refer to from the IETF?
> If you are referring to RFC's, than you are incorrect.  RFC's are NOT
> standards, but "Requests for Comment".
>
>
> >
> >
> > There is some competition over who will provide that service.
>
>   No, not who will, but rather who is.  It is becoming increasingly
> clear that ICANN is not.
>
> > 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.
>
>   Who's root servers?  Which ones?  Who owns them?  What 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.
>
>   Agreed here!
>
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
>   Also agreed.  Hence the injection of new Root and registry structures.
> And I am sure more to come.
>
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
>   Many of them do.
>
> > Granted, ICANN is
> > not doing that very well, but I see no evidence the others should be
> > expected to do it better.
>
>   Or worse.
>
> >
> >
> > > 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.
>
>  Agreed all parties should cooperate.  ICANN is not currently.  Other
> Competitive and Inclusive root and registry services are.
>
> >
> >
> > > 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
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>
> --
> 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
>

--
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