Re: [wg-c] Multiple Root Distractions

[Harold Feld <hfeld@mediaaccess.org>]

I agree with Dave on this, although coming from the opposite camp.
By definition, alternate roots are outside ICANN's purview and
it is a waste of time and a distraction to discuss them here.

Harold

Dave Crocker wrote:

> Folks,
>
> It is long-past time to move discussion about multiple, independent roots
> to some other forum.
>
> It has, quite literally, nothing to do with the work of this group, except
> as a vehicle for keeping us from doing our real work:
>
> At 06:43 PM 12/20/1999 , "A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@chaos.com> wrote:
> > >It would also be useful to foster a more open process.
> > >
> > >The only information available is the following:
> > >...
> > >>In an ideal world, it would be desirable to see some
> > >record of a collective thought process.
> > >...
> > >Minimally, it would be useful to see some record
> > >that the statement was actually adopted by the IAB, and
>
> Let's be clear that these critical comments are offered about the most
> open, and arguably most successful, standards organization in the world and
> that there are no examples of more open -- and successful --
> efforts.  "Fixing" it more likely to break it than to help it.
>
> Let's further be clear that the critical comments also call to question the
> integrity of that body and that they reflect a basic lack of knowledge
> about the work of that body.  The deficiency of knowledge is pretty
> remarkable, given one of the former jobs held by the speaker of these
> critical comments.
>
> So as we consider an ideal world, let us also consider the benefit of less
> petty and less misleading and less distracting contributions.
>
> We could also consider efforts to sanction such efforts to distract, so we
> are spared from any more of them.
>
> At 06:44 PM 12/20/1999 , Paul Garrin <pg@lokmail.net> wrote:
> > >It is likely that our developments will go to the IETF for peer review
> > >at some point.  We don't believe that is is necessary to do so in order
> > >for it to function technically, but it would be nice tradition to give
> > >them a crack at it.
>
> If you refer to the work within ICANN, no, it is likely that the work will
> NOT go to the IETF, since ICANN does not create technical specifications.
>
> If you refer to your own company's work then a) that's irrelevant to this
> forum and b) it will require that you hand over control of the
> specifications to the IETF.  As to tradition, there is quite a bit of that
> already and nothing you have described appears to create a new one.
>
> > >practice development and implementation.  All of our work is based
> > >on existing standards, there is nothing exotic or non-standard
>
> "Based on existing standards" is typically a vendor code-phrase for
> "proprietary".
>
> If there were nothing exotic or non-standard about the work, then there
> would be no new functionality and no value-add.  (And nothing for the IETF
> to review...)
>
> At 10:18 AM 12/20/1999 , Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >A few points - first, the interoperability of the net is not harmed by
> >competitive roots to DNS.  IP packets still flow unvexed to their intended
> >recipients.
>
> Evidently Karl believes that effectively preventing many users of the net
> from reaching each other does not prevent the net from working.  This is an
> impressively narrow view of network "interoperability".
>
> >Second, I don't see any degree of "irresponsibility" here.  I do see the
> >imposition of a regulatory system (ICANN) where none is needed.
>
> You confuse work within one root system administration -- ie, IANA/ICANN --
> as somehow relating to the work of other, independent root systems.  It
> doesn't.
>
> Like any single activity, this work needs its own coordination
> effort.  That you do not like that work is fine.  You are entirely free to
> use and work with other root systems and other root system organizations.
>
> Again, folks, can  we please focus on the real work of this group and stop
> pursuing items that are off-agenda?
>
> d/
>
> =-=-=-=-=
> Dave Crocker  <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
> Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
> Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
> 675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA