RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dave,

At 18:50 03/09/00, you wrote:
>At 01:24 PM 9/3/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>> >>How would you call a root that does not use the ICANN root as baseline?
>> >I'd call it a "Private Root" since it does not reflect the publicly
>The term alternate root has been used to cover any DNS hierarchies that is 
>administered independently of the IANA name root.
>This is not affected by the choice of some independent administrations to 
>incorporate other name administrative assignments.  In other words, the 
>fact that some alternative roots incorporate the IANA/ICANN assigned names 
>is entirely irrelevant.

The age of the term does not preclude it to be tuned to meet
current realities, nor new terms to be coined. Historicaly
Alternate root corresponds also to an attitude and to a root
management philosopy. This attitude and philosopy is not
the one of everybody, specially of the ventures disapointed by
what they consider as a mismanagement by ICANN and look
not for an alternative, but for a solution.

>> >viewable internet name space (anything less than the ICANN baseline is a
>> >private name space). It would not be an "Alternative Root" (alt.root) to
>> >the "IANA/ICANN root" in the publicaly-viewable sense.
>
>This bit of nomenclature subtlety might be helpful to the logic of those 
>running an alternative root service, but is irrelevant to the public 
>discussion, now and in the past.

IMHO a large number of Internet related discussions would
be eased by a dictionnary and a model. So people could
understand what others are talking about and we would not
be constantly obliged to update others on present or past
researches.

>>The main thing I am worried about is that two alt.roots have different
>>name servers for the same TLD.
>The ability to have the name space assignments be different is the key.

I do not think this is a thread as paying people would certainly
address it quick. The value added is filtering.

>John was testing the ability to switch to a new root server.  At the time, 
>there was some concern that NSI might turn rogue and he was exploring the 
>ability to remedy the problems that would cause.

NSI turn rogue? AT least it is independant minded.

>Since IANA had always made the decisions about top-level domains, and 
>since IANA supported addition of the new IAHC/POC gTLDs, the additions 
>would merely have been continued enhancement of the IANA DNS.  There would 
>have been nothing "alternative" or "independent" or "rogue" about it.

GNU asked a $10 a piece ".gnu" TLD, it is all what it should cost
for the IANA to register the TLD and put in the root.

>Lastly is the fact that the test "master" root got all of its data from 
>the NSI 'a' root.  There was no independent name administration.

Amen.
Jefsey

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