Re: [wg-c] Multiple Root Distractions

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	I read Dave's, Karl's, Harald's and Harold's posts as manifesting
impressive consensus that whatever the merits or demerits of competitive
roots, the discussion is not sufficiently on-topic for us to continue it on
WG-C.  (If only all of our consensus determinations were so easy . . .)

Jon




At 08:44 AM 12/21/99 -0500, Harold Feld wrote:
>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
>
>
>