Re: [wg-c] reposted for Harald Tveit Alvestrand

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

Ok,
	I'll follow you for this one. You are correct that a possible
approach is to have different uncoordinated competitive roots with no
concern for their competitors. Is that not what we have now? Ie, the
ICANN/IANA root (which by the way is the only significant one), and the
plethora of "alternative" or "rogue" roots? Given that, then what we are
doing in these forums is to discuss the coordination of one particular root,
the ICANN/IANA roots. As you indicate, it can be done with total disregard
for the competition.
Those talking about there being only one root, I believe, are trying to
indicate that there can only be one MEANINGFUL root. You can start
nit-picking all you want and run different root-zones with minor changes, or
additions of irrelevant data and call it whatever you want. Yes, agreed that
when you're doing that you are taking SOMEWHAT control of what you put in
your zone file, but that approach only works as long as you have somewhere
from where you can pickup the data you're going to put into that zone!!!
(hey, you're not suddenly going to have little voices in your head that told
you the IP addresses of the name servers for all those TLDs, are you? And
frankly, to have every individual person separately go out on an
investigative quest regarding each and every TLD out there is a rather
daunting task).
Under your definition, currently we HAVE competing roots. Under your
definition, ICANN/IANA is a coordination body for ONE of those competing
roots. As you are running (again, under your definition) a competitor to the
ICANN/IANA roots, it would seem that what you are constantly engaging in is
in an attempt to disrupt what you perceive as your competition.
Nice try, no biscuit.

Yours, John Broomfield.


> (I'd suggest that right now we might all be thinking that fraudulant
> e-mail is perhaps a more significant source of net instability than
> competing DNS roots.  The current e-mail chaos does point out that if
> there is a weakness in the Internet, somebody will eventually abuse it.
> Thus, if multiple roots are, in fact, a source of potential disruption
> [something I don't agree that they are, but there are many who feel the
> contrary] then we ought to be concerned that such a weakness is
> technically corrected rather than simply closing our eyes and hoping it
> doesn't happen.)
> 
> Anyway....
> 
> > There is no need to fragment the internet.  Multiple roots
> > can and should exist, but must be coordinated.
> 
> If competitive root systems needed coordination, then we'd need ICANN.
> 
> But the fact of the matter is coordination is neither necessary nor
> desirable, whether measured by a technical, economic, or political
> yardstick.
> 
> Competing roots can be operated as the word "competing" fully implies -
> with total disregard (within the limits of law) for the health and
> survival of ones competitors.
> 
> It's really nobody's business but my own whether I take my name resolution
> business to Uncle Ho's name resolution service or to some ICANN
> franchisee.
> 
> I hardly need an Internet Government to regulate the quality of the
> service.  If I get crummy service from Uncle Ho, then I can switch.
> 
> Those root system operators who want to share can share.  Those who want
> to "coordinate" can be "coordinated".  But competitive roots don't require
> any of that, whether in a technical or administrative sense.
> 
> Absent somebody enacting a worldwide law (and enforcing it) there's
> nothing that can stop the creation, deployment, and use of distinct and
> uncoordinated root systems.
> 
> 		--karl--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>