Re: Re[2]: [ga-roots] Names Council and Alternate Roots

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Sergio,
Let bring some European cartesianism in all this. The DNS is a hierarchical 
system handling names of the DNS name space. The DNS name space is built of :

- every possible sequence of 256 alnum including some dots represented for 
convenience by nothing.
- divided in sub name spaces made of tld.xxxxxxxxxxxx
- divided in sub subname spaces made of tld.sld.xxxxxx
- etc...

The root is the list of sub name spaces. It includes all the existing TLDs. 
This is neat and clear.


Now we face a secretariat dispute. The list of the sub name spaces may be 
decided or collected.

1) one group of people tries to chase all the existing TLDs and to reduce 
the claims for the same TLD. This work is very seriously under way for 
several months now and works quite well: no one wants to waste time and 
money in a colliding TLD (Vint Cerf excepted). I can copy you that list. 
This list is the inclusive root (it wants to include everyone).

2) the iCANN. They have embarked in a very costly way of living and needs 
money. So instead of trying to make a list of what exists, they sells the 
right to be on their list. Since they have actually nothing to sell it 
creates the fiction of a complex contract (actually they do provide a 
certain quality control for a very frozen/outdated model of TLD). Then they 
play it a way which promotes their list and makes commercially known their 
TLDs. A good corporation strategy inadequate to a consensus common interest 
non-profit organization.


This results into two lists: the inclusive or open root by the inclusive 
people and the exclusive or restricted root by the iCANN. As the inclusive 
root includes the iCANN root, there is absolutely no technical problem in 
using the inclusive root. Until the iCANN determined to commercially 
challenge inclusive root list in determining to introduce a collider, 
endangering the stability of the whole network, due to the possible 
collisions, but mainly in undermining the confidence of the people.

This is pure commercial competition between someone wanting to make money 
where other are free.


On a technical side :
- a part from the collision challenge by he iCANN there are some problems 
in using the iCANN root as one cannot access all the TLDs. And there is a 
very high cost and delay to pay to create a new TLD.
- a part from the collision reduction effort there are some problems in 
using the inclusive root: when a TLD is missing it takes a few weeks before 
all the roots have been updated; also with its collider the iCANN maintain 
and develop an island within the net creating possible problems of propagation.

The solution is rather simple:
1) the iCANN to respect its bylaws and accept the every existing TLD on its 
root server system
2) the iCANN to continue to develop contracts with cc/gTLDs as some quality 
control for the public

Otherwise the solution will be very simple: pirates like New.net and others 
will develop out of user frustration, alt.root will ally with some ccTLDs, 
the DNS system will continue to perform but in a more competitive 
environment and progressively the iCANN will not get its budget and will die.

Jefsey



On 22:29 03/06/01, sergio.baccaglini said:
> > They have no rights inside the ICANN controlled namespace, and ICANN
> > has no rights inside the alt.root namespace.  They are mutually
> > exclusive.
>
>I am not American. I do live in europe; but how do you ALL feel about the
>fact that all the namespaces are mutually exclusive but one of 'em has
>"some" sort of supervision on one of this namespace? Is it the "Official"
>one? If we are in a market,( it is at this point) , there has to be some
>kind of parity between the players; so that finally supervision has to be
>cut.
>In EU, for eg, national states can't provide any fundings or supports to a
>company if this means an adavntage with regard to the rest of competitors in
>EU.
>
>I don't know if I support alt-roots. I use them, but i most care of
>stability and I don't welcome at all any collision.
>I'd only like to see some clarity about the matter, and on my opinion ICANN
>could do much better at this regard. (see the Lynn's draft Paper)
>
>
>--
>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