Re: [wg-c] Re: multiple_roots

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

Mr. Auerbach's position, reflected below, is value-laden, as is my own.

My position is simply this:  multiple roots means that the way in which
a domain name resolves will depend on whom you ask.

For funky TLDs (e.g., the unfamous .KJC domain), that's fine.

For GTLDs, it's a bad outcome.

As I said, this is a value-laden determination, not susceptible of being
tech'ed away.  Probably not even susceptible of collecting the kind
of political adhesion known as rough consensus.  But it's a determination
that will have to be made.

KJC

>>> Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com> 08/31/99 02:48PM >>>

> >  http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/issue_2.htm#multiple_roots 

> >As for your concern about what holds the net together - I'm relying on
> >enlightened self interest or what you call "anarchy.".  Which, by the way,
> >is exactly what holds the net's routing system together.  If it's good
> >enough for routing, its certainly good enough for DNS.

> Autonomous System numbers and IP net numbers hold the net together and 
> those are assigned uniquely, specifically to avoid the kind of referential 
> ambiguity that you want to encourage for naming.

Most excellent techno-FUD.

It would go nicely into my catalog of bogus network products:
	http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/catalog.html 

It will go well with my Armor Piercing Packet, Vacuum Filled Fiber Optics,
and XML-to-Cobol convertor.

The truth of the matter is that there is no harm in multiple roots.  They
are merely the portal to a suite of TLDs.

Indeed, that's the best way to think of a DNS root system -- a portal.
The user can pick and chose which one.  The products behind the portal,
the TLDs, will largely be the same no matter which portal is used.

You are mixing the concept of address (phone numbers/ip-addresses) with
the concept of the lookup key (the callee's name, the dns name.).

Only the former needs any sort of coordinated allocation.

But all that aside, I have put forward a business solution to this working
group's big problem.

It is not a technical issue at all.

If the WG decides to ignore it because of FUD, fine.  It just reduces what
this WG does to mere insularity.

Those TLDs that chose not to be part of ICANN's root system need not abide
by ICANN's contractually-based policies, such as dispute resolution, fees,
etc etc.  That could result in substantial business advantages for those
TLDs, as well as reduce ICANN's ability to negotiate the contracts that
its policies depend upon.

I would suggest to the WG that they not pretend that multiple roots don't
exist.  Ignorring reality isn't a good way to develop policy.

		--karl--




**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************