On Thu, 10 May 2001, Matt Prigge wrote:
> > What standard would you be referring to?(there are lots to choose from.)
> > There is one "standard" that I am aware of that we are in conflict
> > with which is RFC 2826. This obstensibly technical standard states in part
> > that the name space must be administered by a single naming authority. Now
> > I don't know about you, and perhaps you'll disagree, but defining an
> > administrative structure doesn't seem to fall within the realm of the
> > technical. It's a political statement, not a technical standard. Given
> > that the IAB/IETF is part of the ICANN structure, it is small wonder that
> > there exists such a document.
>
> That is the standard I was referring to. To infer that an administrative
> structure shouldnt/doesnt effect the technical realm, IMO, is ultimately
> flawed.
Of course it has an effect, but it doesn't define it.
> Especially when you have a single namespace that everyone on the
> internet uses.
I sit here typing this in an office which is using RFC1918
address space and has its' own private namespace/naming scheme. This is a
pretty common practice.
There is a reasonably long history of "alternate roots" on the Internet.
Companies such as AOL and Realnames provide keyword systems that offer
"keyword" systems, which are not globally resolvable.
Verisign is selling multilingual names that are not globally resolvable.
We don't have a single namespace that everyone on the Internet uses, as
the above should illustrate.
> For example: if you were running DNS for a very large
> multinational company, would you want more than one of your IT groups to
> have control over the root of your domain space? No.
The Internet is not a business entity with a single management team. The
Internet is a collection of networks whose operators happen to agree to
exchange data to varying extents and based on their own individual
policies for doing so. For this reason I don't believe your argument is
very applicable to this situation.
> Maybe one other group might not be that bad,
> especially if they had everyone's interests in mind. But what if there were
> six or eight? I assume that you have signed exclusive contracts with the
> ISPs you have signed on, so maybe this may not become an issue. However, if
> you are sucessful (as you may well be), people will try to replicate your
> success and may not be so scrupulous about it.
You reap what you sew or so the saying goes. I imagine if there were six
or eight *viable* organizations out there doing what we are doing, that we
would figure out some sort of peering arrangement with them.(my own
personal opinion)
> > We aren't forcing anyone to do anything they don't want to do. If people
> > want to add support for our names, they will. If we can't convince them
> > to do so they won't. If we do a good job, then we will succeed. If we do a
> > poor job, then we'll go away.
>
> This does sort of bother me. If you do a poor job, youll go away and
> thousands of people who have registred names with you will be sitting there
> with nothing.
This is no different than any other business. Again, this is a market based
solution(I know I've said that a lot) not a regulatory one. One of the risks
of what we are doing is that we could go out of business. The question I'd
ask is this risk more important than limited consumer choice and the
regulatory regime that ICANN is imposing? For you perhaps the answer is
yes. For others it is no. Our whole premise is that the consumer should be
given the choice to decided this for themselves.
> Is this any different than registering names with an ICANN
> registrar that goes out of business? I think it is. If an ICANN registrar
> goes out of business, dont I still hold the registration?
Yes you certainly do.
> > The beauty of this is the degree of self-determination we enjoy, and the
> fact
> > that we can offer consumers what they want *now* rather than later(or
> > never.)
>
> I truly do admire that. The method is what bothers me. The root namespace is
> too important not to be administrated by a single body. Unfortunately this
> also creates a single point of failure which is what we're seeing now with
> ICANN. If it were put together differently, ICANN could be very effective
> and efficient. I think thats the goal we should be trying to achieve. Maybe
> thats naive, I dont know.
I've personally been down that path and tried very hard at great personal
expense, and those efforts have utterly failed, and the situation is only
worsening. Just the other day their proposed budget was leaked, in which
there is *0* budget for the next round of elections. This is important not
only for it's own sake, but because they are also in the midst of a "clean
sheet" study to determine if at-large members are appropriate at all.
Given that they are proposing no budget for the next round of elections,
one can only wonder if they haven't already made up their mind on the
matter. This is just one, in a long,long litany of examples pointing to
their failure to execute on their mandate.
> > Are you certain you know enough about either to make that determination?
> > The reason I ask is that I've been involved in this space for several
> > years, and the only reason New.net exists at all is because of ICANN, both
> > the way in which it was formed, as well as how it has behaved.
>
> Im not certain of anything really. This is a discussion list. Ill be the
> first to raise my hand and say I dont know everything. At the same time, one
> doesnt learn anything by being quiet and not asking questions. You obviously
> do know more about this than I do and I will readily conceed that.
My apologies if the above sounded harsh at all. It wasn't meant that way.
It's a little frustrating sometimes because people hear what ICANN
*says* they are about(bottom-up, transparent, consensus-based, etc.) which
sounds great, but when you see them in action, it's a completely different
story, one which not too many people know about.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell
Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
