Re: [wg-review] GA 2

[Eric Dierker <Eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

WATCH OUT BECAUSE WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT THE GA
ANOTHER FEINT?
LET US RESOLUTELY BACK THE CONCEPT WHICH HAS BEEN A MOTION AND SECONDED TO OUR
CHAIR.  THE GA NEEDS A RUDDER.
THANK YOU JOANNA YESTERDAY i MEANT A VESSEL WITHOUT DIRECTION.

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> We might remind ourselves what we are talking about here. We are talking
> about the root-zone and all the stuff under it.
>
> Zone servers themselves, plus the interconnections to the internet, are
> infrastructure. MHSC controls about 30 of them. The zones that they serve
> are "content". /USG/DOC/NTIA controls the preimenent content file for DOT,
>



> the root-zone. There are other DOT-level content files out there, one of
> them is the ORSC root-zone. MHSC has our own root-zone, based on the ORSC
> root-zone (the same way that ORSC root-zone is based on DOC root-zone).
> These DOT-level content files do nothing more than point to other zone
> servers that serve TLD level content files. A TLD zone file, unlike a DOT
> level file, can be uniquely named, ie COM, NET, and ORG. The, in tuen, point
> to SLD level zone servers, that server SLD level content files, which are
> also uniquely named, like MHSC.NET. This can go on ad nauseum
> until,eventually, one points at a host, rather than a zone server.
>
> What some folks fail to realize is that, any of these pointers can be
> directly to a host, at anywhere in the chain. MHSC, MHSC.NET, MHSC.NET.VPN
> are ALL references to the same host and they resolve that way on MHSC zone
> servers. The only differences are the path through the authority chain.
>
> Note that, the DOC controls the content of their root zone file, as does the
> ORSC control theirs, as MHSC control theirs. DOC outsources publication of
> their file via NSI, using ROOT-SERVERS.NET, the ORSC is a confederation of
> zone server network operators, MHSC publishes via ROOT-SERVICE.NET. Of all
> of these, and there are more (PacificRoot, AtlanticRoot), only the DOC does
> not control ANY infrastructure. The rest of us own the servers that publish
> our root-zone files.
>
> Where is the ICANN in all of this? The ICANN does NOT control any root zone
> files, it ALSO does NOT own ANY infrastructure that publishes any root zone
> files. The ICANN merely tries to influence the DOC in the management of the
> content of the DOC root zone file. Thus far, it hasn't had ANY measurable
> influence.
>
> In the face of this, it is clear that a DNS name is solely an addressing
> mechanism. All other uses are from secondary meanings attributed to the
> particular sub-strings used in the name. The addressing table, that we call
> the zone files, are the content of an huge addressing database, distributed
> over MANY machines(hosts).
>
> Definitions of domain name, outside of this structure, are meaningless. This
> whole fight, from day-one has ALWAYS been about the control of the content
> of the DOT and TLD level zone files.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Miles B. Whitener [mailto:mbw@i-theta.com]
> > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 3:14 PM
> > To: Sotiropoulos
> > Cc: Eric Dierker; review
> > Subject: Re: [wg-review] dndef, 9
> >
> >
> > Sotiris,
> >  The state does not own the Internet infrastructure, at least not
> > all of it. And there are a lot of nations involved here.  Any
> > influence little groups like ours has is at the pleasure of the
> > owners (not that this is a bad policy on their part -- they are
> > wise to allow users to have some influence).
> >  My main point is that the existing Internet is a particular
> > physical manifestation that might or might not prevail into the
> > future.  And, more important, any presumption that the present
> > DNS will remain the dominant naming mechanism on the public
> > networks is by no means assured.  And that COM, NET, ORG and
> > others are only figments of the current DNS's imagination.  And
> > that the issuance of TLDs requires assessing who controls the
> > root domain.  And that subdomains under TLDs, and subdomains
> > under those subdomains, will be governed according to the
> > delegation agreements from parent domain holder to child domain
> > registrant.  And that there's competition at every level except
> > for who owns the root, and there's competition even there, if
> > TPTB get too uppity, because DNS itself is optional, if you
> > consider how fast new protocols can catch fire in the market.
> >  If the others like, lets take this off the list.
> >   mbw
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sotiropoulos" <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
> > To: "Miles B. Whitener" <mbw@i-theta.com>
> > Cc: "Eric Dierker" <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>; "review"
> > <wg-review@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 4:59 PM
> > Subject: Re: [wg-review] dndef, 9
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Miles B. Whitener wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sotiris,
> > > >  I don't see how your analogy applies.
> > >
> > > Let's walk through it together.
> > >
> > > > What I am saying is like
> > > > this: if I own a physical network (here, the Internet), then
> > I
> > > > can dictate, generally, how services (here, DNS, as run on
> > port
> > > > 53) are to be used.
> > >
> > > If the State owns the highway, they can tell you what height
> > your
> > > vehicle can be to use it (due to overpasses etc..).  The State
> > can also
> > > tell you what type of vehicles they want driven on it (i.e.
> > ones that
> > > don't pollute, hence, emission controls).  The State can also
> > tell you
> > > how fast you can drive, and can give you speeding tickets if
> > you disobey.
> > >
> > > BUT the State cannot tell you which car (in a perfectly
> > legitimate car
> > > market) you can or cannot buy.
> > >
> > > > And if I make an agreement with somebody to
> > > > _delegate_ the management of something to them, then the T&C
> > of
> > > > the agreement will dominate, under the law of the nation.
> > >
> > > When your highway *must* pass through other people's
> > > Counties/Jurisdictions, would you not say that they had some
> > *right* in
> > > the "delegation" of your disposition (after all, you *want* it
> > to pass
> > > through their territory, don't you?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > >        Hermes Network, Inc.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html