Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

At 16:23 29/07/02, todd glassey wrote:
> > There is a root zone indicated in the URI: this is the TLD. Roots are the
> > registered name of a sub-namespace into the global namespace and in the
> > orther sub-namespaces. In Internet words this translates to ".arpa" (for
> > the arpa-sub namespace) and in "." (for the global namespace).
>
>And .China in their namespace?

the public (Gov) namespace are up to now  built on 3 characters :

ISO 3166 3 letters for alpha    :
FRA France
USA USA
and X121 3 letters for numerics
FRA 208
USA 310 and 301

so ".fra" and ".usa" (I am sorry for John) are public namespaces. Obviously 
the may decide to change and/or extend. The current/old practices are not 
the issue. The right, the need and the experience are because what worked 
is likely to work again, to represent a need and to be claimed as a right.

> > As per constant practice (recalled in RFC 920) the TLD (sub-namespaces)
> > may originate from one sub-namespace which administers it (as its referent
> > gTLDs, sTLDs), or from another sub-namespace or from the global namespace,
> > you then only register it (ccTLDs, moTLDs).
>
>Who said that this practice was sane?

The entire world: FCC, Govs, ITU people, operators, users... But most of 
all the simple logic.

>Its not, and using a RFC from the IETF is hardly a way of legitamixing 
>something. Their practices are so corrupt and flawed that itis my personal 
>opinion  that anyone that relies on
>anything from the IETF gets what they deserve.

IETF is made of many people of different opinions. But in this case the RFC 
920 is only Jon Postel translating into a permanent document the 
consequences of the delegation agreement he entered into with the public 
services and GOv licenses. If this is not correct, none of the delegations 
he gave (TLDs and ccTLDs and current ICANN delegations) are correct. ICP-3 
is then entirely wrong. The DoC has no right on the DNS. You may then close 
the entire show. RFC 920 is the real/outside world legitimacy of the Internet.

> >  From the very begining (1977) the ITU has been the place were the root
> > names and TLD names got their legimacy from, through the respect of the
> > International rules by FCC and by soverign states, and through X.121,
> > E.164 standards.
>
>yes -this is true - but here even the ITU is braindead to some extent.

It is. These people went numeric instead of alphanumeric. But the Internet 
shown them the light. They want their share of the cake.

> > The special case from the Internet comes from the size taken by
> > the its brainware development (people think they use it all over the
>place)
> > and from its lack of support of X.121 and E.164 until now. Things would
> > have been quite easier to understand and manage otherwise.
>
>AMEN to that. If people understood the actual fabric of the Internet and how
>it got there.
>
> >
> > So called "alternate roots" are only an extension of the ".arpa" root as
> > far as I read them, except China.
>
>I disagree here - the alternate roots are just that in most cases. Alternate
>sets of root servers.

Please... do not confuse the root file and the root servers. There are 
many, many, many alternate root server systems, one per intranet, several 
at ccTLDs and at least 3 major projects I know of parallel root servers 
systems.

>Some of them resolve a common ubset of thinggs and
>then their own native extensions and that is a problem since most all of
>that happens in what was considered the ICANN root.

Four problems here.
- those who claim they are legitimate as copies of the .com extension (.biz)
- those who conflict with a prexsiting TLD or right (like possibly .usa - 
it was never used but the US IRCs - itt, rca, wui, trt, ftc were used)
- those who claim to have their own right as moTLD
- those claiming external rights - outside of ".arpa". Today I know none, 
but there will be soon.

> > China is legitimately taking advantage
> > from its national root. Leah ".biz" is claiming legitimacy from ".arpa" in
> > comparing to the ".com" extended use.
> > jfc
>
>And Jefsey, that is the point.  And I am aware of the Multi-root facilities
>but they take buyin to operate and that has not been forth coming. The
>reality if that if NAT had been invented twn years earlier the DNS services
>would have evolved vert differently as would the WWW.

I am not sure I understand this. NAT is digital into digital. Names permits 
to be transparent to it?
jfc