Someone attempts to cut to the heart of the matter ...
----- Forwarded message from Ed Gerck -----
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Mar 15 21:19:38 1999
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 21:13:42 -0800
Reply-To: Ed Gerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Owner-Domain-Policy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Ed Gerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: REFLECTIONS UPON THE .US MEETING
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
REFLECTIONS UPON THE .US MEETING
This is written as a result of the NTIA sponsored meeting on .US at the
Dept. of Commerce in Washington, DC, held on 9 March 1999. I represented
the Meta-Certificate Group (MCG), essentially referring to technical
matters already expressed by myself, Tony Bartoletti, Nicholas Bohm,
Peter, Einar Stefferud and others, in papers [1,2] and list discussions
[3]. I also called attention to issues occurring in the .br domain --
which can be helpful to the .us domain.
Reflecting on the presentations and discussions at the .us meeting, it
appeared to me that the most profound problem in all DNS administrative
models and structuring proposals is still wholly ignored.
This basic problem can be phrased into some questions, in varying
depths, as:
o "What is a name?",
o "What is a name in a communication system (hereafter, NCS)?",
o "What is a NCS in any DNS naming system such as .us?",
o "What a name is not?", etc.
But, many participants stated, "that is simple"... a DNS name is "a
locator" as some said; "an identity" as one of the registrars said; "a
locally verified identity" as another registrar said; "a business
locator and a threat to famous trademarks" as Bell Atlantic said; "a
market opportunity"; "an address with an US Postal Service interface;
"similar to a phone number"; "similar to a frequency channel in
broadcasting"; and even "a national asset" as the USPS declared; besides
other declarations such as "who cares?". It is hard to look at this list
and see any common understanding, or even a suggestion of an abstract
model that might serve as a foundation for broad rough consensus.
As the above actual quotes from the .us meeting may indicate, a name in
a DNS system can be many things ...some are factually incorrect if
expressed as above, some are just conceptually confused...
Perhaps it is clear to the reader that this lack of definition is a
serious but unseen problem. The issue here is similar to that facing
Shannon 50 years ago, when he had to define what information was...
before a useful information model could be set forth. As compared in
[4], the same happened before the concept of trust could be used in an
extension of information theory to meaningful communication. Likewise,
unless we can define a useful and logical model for "names in
communication systems" (NCS), we cannot set forth a useful communication
model for DNS, e-mail, etc. Faulty and old conventions will not help
much when countries become .xx extensions at the end of an URL.
However, I believe this question cannot be answered historically. The
Internet today is vastly different than what it originally was or, will
be in the future. Rather, we need to realize that we must first define
what a "name" is in communication systems. And, what a "DNS name" is;
what types of names we may have; what purposes they may fulfill; what
they are *not*; etc. -- before we can go into models and protocols that
will use them. Otherwise, DNS models will just reflect our ignorance,
increase conflicts and cause public harm -- not to mention the loss of
opportunities for private, public and commercial sectors alike.
Indeed, the public discussions led by NTIA with focus on the .us domain
may have just provided us with a taste of this otherwise unseen problem,
and a clear view of the wide spectrum of interests and expertise that
may need to come together, with no exceptions, for its proper
assessment.
The purpose of these reflections is therefore to point out this
realization. We cannot model what we ignore. Even though what we
ignore may sound simple. Of course, what we ignore must sound simple,
else we could not con ourselves into ignoring it.
Some of these comments sound a lot like my openning remarks in [4],
where the need for a formal and abstract, but real-world based,
definition of trust is presented and pursued as an abstract model. This
abstract trust model has gained increasing support worldwide since its
first Internet publication in Jan/98 and is also gaining currency for
the technique of abstract modeling and later instantiation in real
systems.
Indeed, I believe this experience can be replicated in order to further
the effort to resolve the future of the .us ccTLD domain, and, most
importantly, to provide the apparent paradoxical possibility of
convergence for intrinsically divergent views. This can, however, be
possible by abstraction [4]. Of course, the effort needs time and space
for discussions, even if virtual.
The MCG already has a working group on the subject of names in
communication systems which is drafting the Internet Identification
Standard based on a non self-referential theory of identification [5].
The results are being publicly discussed [3] and participation is open
to all. As the MCG includes participants from 28 countries, I expect
coverage of enough country-specific issues so as not to make the final
recommendations too country-specific -- as the naming issue has strong
linguistic and cultural flavors which need to be represented and *not*
ironed-out as they usually are in the good name of standardization.
Indeed, the MCG views standardization as the result of interoperation,
not of conformation. If a recommendation interoperates with all others
then it is already a standard.
Thus, in closing, I would ask for comments on the above, as well as for
other groups or agencies that may feel the need for an abstract model of
"names in communication systems" (NCS), specially in regard to the
Internet and DNS.
These studies can also serve as a basis for NTIA, IETF, W3C, ICANN,
ORSC, ISO, MCG or for other groups. Thus, my final suggestion is that
relevant participants from various groups as above should be contacted,
as well as Bell Atlantic (as an example for trademark interests) so
that they may, if they will, provide representative feedback from a wide
perspective. Again, the issues are broad and thus they call for a broad
view.
Comments?
Ed Gerck
========================
REFERENCES:
[1] http://www.mcg.org.br/wiporfc3.txt and
http://www.mcg.org.br/icannba.txt
[2] http://www.mcg.org.br/papers.htm
[3] htpp://www.mcg.org.br/emails.htm
[4] http://www.mcg.org.br/trustdef.htm
[5] http://www.mcg.org.br/coherence.txt
_____________________________________________________________________
Dr.rer.nat. E. Gerck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY"
For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"
----- End of forwarded message from Ed Gerck -----
