Re: [wg-c] Multiple Root Distractions

[Paul Garrin <pg@name-space.com>]

 > 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.
>
>Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> 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.
>

No, but ICANN is chartered with overseeing the process to review policy
and implementation of additional gTLDs to the root.  That's why we are all
here, talking about it.

The technical feasability has long been proven and is now ready to
move up to full deployment.  Private industry can provide the solutions,
and in fact already has had it in operation for over three years.  
It's history already.  Three years in "internet time" is unreasonable.
(one year is the legal benchmark for unreasonable in "internet time"
according to a recent ruling).

Our job here is about finding a way to do this, while keeping the DNS
glued together.  In that case, the spirit of the IAB "single root theory"
is a noble goal.
 
> If you refer to your own company's work then a) that's irrelevant to this 
> forum

My company's work is absolutely relevant to this forum and it has a context
in it. I have witnessed an expanded root!  While there is much theorizing and
speculating on this list, there is also much running code out there in
the real world.  Running policy and running code, and it works really
well and customers are happy, and the market is ready, and so are a
lot of operators who are suffering by the relentless restraint of trade
that is going on here.  The market just may make ICANN moot if they
don't get it right soon, if Karl is correct.

 b) it will require that you hand over control of the 
> specifications to the IETF.

Actually, they already have all of the specificatons.

> As to tradition, there is quite a bit of that 
> already and nothing you have described appears to create a new one.
>

Not new, just well applied.

> > >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".
>

We don't call it proprietary, we call it orthogonal.

> 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...)

That's right!  Since it all uses proven technology, there is nothing to
review! Now FINALLY we can get off this topic, and get on to running code.



Paul Garrin