RE: Root [Was: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member]

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Hello Roberto,

To answer this modified question. MHSC has automated process in place to
fetch the legacy root-zone intact and incorporates TLDs from the ORSC
root-zone automatically and then incorporates MHSC TLDs as the last
step. I believe that is what Richard does manually, for the ORSC. At the
moment, there are no known remaining conflicts.

Currently in development, at MHSC, is to feed all this data into an
Oracle database and auto-generate the MHSC root-zone and whois registry
data (services pending).

The ORSC has an infomal conflict resolution mechanism in place that was
last used to resolve the conflict in SYS. It worked admirably, ask
Jefsey for details. All involved parties were satisfied.

If you were to ask me if I thought that this would scale, I would have
to answer in the negative. There is a critical process that is currently
not automated (the ORSC root-zone creation process, TINC has a similar
problem). However, this is a problem with well-known solutions, it
mainly requires implementation.

I am worried about the wrong-headedness of certain parties to ignore the
ORSC efforts, as being irrelevant. ICANN could create a conflict in WEB
or SYS, for example, and refuse to resolve/negotiate the conflict,
leaning on apparent authority. The problem is that this authority does
not resolve in law, international or otherwise. This could cause a
fracture in the legacy root-zone that would end up in US Federal court,
with USG/DOC/NTIA/ICANN on the losing end. Counter to what some may
deperately want to believe, MHSC does not desire such an outcome and is
the main reason that MHSC has participated, to the extent it has, in the
ICANN process.

Please consider this; Contrary to what we are taught from childhood, it
does not require two to create a conflict. Rather the reverse, it
requires two to create peace (the conflict is inherent), with
willingness to compromise ON BOTH SIDES. If either party refuses to
negotiate/compromise, in good faith, then the remaining party has only
two choices, fight or capitulate. ICANN is not strong anough to force
capitulation, IMHO. Therefore, in order to prevent a fight (and
resultant root-zone fracture) ICANN must come to terms with what some
call the alternate roots. This is a classic three-corner problem with
the third corner absent.

---
R O E L A N D  M .  J .  M E Y E R
CEO, Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
An eCommerce and eBusiness practice
providing products and services for the Internet.
Tel: (925)373-3954
Fax: (925)373-9781
Cell: (925)352-3615




> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto.gaetano@voila.fr]
> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 12:18 PM
> 
> Roeland,
> 
> This is how I understood Harald's message.
> WHen he sais "domain" he means "TLD".
> If ICANN delegates a TLD that is already included in an 
> alt.root, would 
> the root operator switch within 24H to be consistent with the a.root.
> 
> Which is still something, but I maintain that it does not solve the 
> problem of different alt.roots pointing to different TLD root servers 
> for the same TLD.
> 
> Roberto
> 
> 
> >Harald,
> >
> >You are confusing TLD root servers with root-zone servers here.
> >Root-zone servers only answer for the root-zone and redirect TLD 
> queries
> >to TLD root servers, which only the TLD registry can run. Which is
> >precisely what root-zone servers should do. As a result, "of course"!
> >None of us, using ORSC root-zone, resolve for any other TLD 
> but our own
> 
> >(if we even have one) and we will point to other TLD root servers, as
> >well as the legacy TLD root servers (firewalls permitting).
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:Harald@Alvestrand.no]
> >> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 3:55 AM
> >> To: Simon Higgs; roberto.gaetano@voila.fr
> >> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> >> Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member
> >> 
> >> 
> >> At 15:22 03/09/2000 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
> >> >There is no guidance to establish checks and balances in any 
> >> DNS server 
> >> >which has been altered from the vanilla USG-root. I'm 
> >> halfway through an 
> >> >Internet Draft to try and ensure that there is a minimum 
> supported 
> >> >baseline (the USG root zone).
> >> 
> >> I would not see great harm in an "alternate" root where the 
> >> owners would 
> >> automatically vacate within 24 hours any domain that was 
> >> subsequently added 
> >> to the ICANN roots; if changes to the baseline automatically 
> >> meant that the 
> >> alternate roots were changed to conform, most of the 
> >> potential harm of 
> >> alternate roots would be alleviated.
> >> 
> >> Neither would I see much point in such a construction.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> --
> >> 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
> >> 
> >--
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> 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
> 
--
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