[ga] Comments from Milton Mueller

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

>>> vint cerf <vcerf@MCI.NET> 07/10/01 09:05AM >>>

I believe the document states current policy - the unique, authoritative root 
is
part of the core design of the DNS and the basis for ICANN's responsibility in
the creation of new TLDs.

MM:
If Stuart Lynn's paper really defined current policy
there would be no need for a new document to state it, nor
would there have been a need to solicit "comments and suggestions"
to help define it. 

An existing policy could reference clear, explicit statements,
that already existed. It could refer to past DNSO processes
that explicitly dealt with the relationship between ICANN
and other roots. 

No such documents exist. No such processes can be
referred to.

As for RFC 2826, as I have noted countless times, all that says
is that you need a coordinated root. It doesn't say who coordinates
it, it doesn't say how it gets coordinated or what rules or 
algorithms are used to do so. You could be RFC 2826-compliant
by:

a) avoiding any TLD assignments that conflict with alternate roots
b) adding all alternate root assignments to the ICANN root
c) pretending that alt.roots don't exist

The lack of determinism is proof that no current policy exists.

I am still baffled as to why ICANN management seems to think
that Lynn's paper defines a policy that everyone supports
but is scared to death of allowing that policy to be developed
and ratified by the DNSO.

regards,
MM
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00609.html




>>> Louis Touton <touton@icann.org> 07/10/01 01:52PM >>>
   2.  At its 2 June 2001 meeting, the Names Council passed the
following resolution:  "The Names Council considers that multiple roots
are outside the scope of the ICANN DNSO."  Milton Mueller voted for that
resolution.

MM:
As everyone on the NC knows, I wanted to create an open
Working Group to discuss the problem of alternate roots
and develop a real consensus policy.

Some people on the NC and ICANN staff are afraid to 
discuss that issue at all. They were making moves to 
issue a statement without any consensus-development
process (which is what Lynn ended up doing).

As I made it clear at the time when voting, if the Names
Council cannot deal with the problem of alternate roots in an
aboveboard and open manner, then it should not deal with
it at all. That is why I voted for the resolution:

"Multiple Roots are outside the scope of the DNSO."

Now, Louis, please explain to us how that vote is consistent
with Lynn's paper, which attacks the proprietors of other
roots.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00610.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