Hi Craig McTaggart, you wrote on 7/3/99 3:51:29 PM:
>
>Many private parties are involved in making the Internet, and in particular
>the DNS, work (and there would be many more with multiple roots), and their
>servers, routers and their local databases (but not the data in them) are
>unquestionably their private property.
No argument here. The point that needs to be made at the same time,
though, is that this has the potential of creating technical and commercial
competition as well... generally considered a good thing.
>
>The question of how such a phenomenon is managed does matter, because it
>impacts universal connectivity.
>
Yes. But then the management focus is on the coordination of a multiple
root system, not the governance of a single root system.
>
>I know multiple roots are possible. Lots of things which detract from the
>Internet as we know it are possible, but I don't think they are desireable.
>Lots of people use the Internet for lots of different purposes, and for
>some, an alternate (or 'non-IANA-recognized') TLD might work fine, but my
>understanding is that universal interconnectivity among all public Internet
>users, for which the Internet is now known, would be threatened by multiple
>roots, although I'm beginning to come around to the idea that multiple
>roots
>would result in a net _increase_ in _selective_ connectivity, just without
>the _universal_ interconnectivity which the IANA root has provided.
>
I could not disagree more strongly. Your assertion here is only valid IF we
assume that there can be / will be no coordinated management of
root-to-root operation. This may not be the ideal scenario, but there is
certainly no technical nor operational reason why it could not work. This
is similar to the argument against the breakup of ATT. Then, the argument
was that there would be difficulty in inter-RBOC operation.
>A single root means somebody is going to hold some pretty serious power.
>Jon Postel handled it pretty well, and for being concerned with universal
>connectivity above all else is now referred to by some as a socialist. For
>most of his career, the Internet was a pretty homogenous place, ironically,
>given the diversity of networks which comprise the phenomenon. Now that
>people want to 'own' TLDs and sell registrations in them, among other
>things, those days appear to be over. I agree that the Internet's ability
>to accommodate multiple networks and even multiple roots demonstrate that
>nobody need be 'in charge' of it, but the goal of universal connectivity
>seems to require that somebody, unfortunately, be 'in charge'.
Who is in charge of the global telephone system? Or the US telephone
system? Name the single, all-powerful (ICANN-like) organization.
>
>One might argue that nobody need be in charge of the telephone network, or
>civil aviation networks, but on a practical level, it helps, because it
>makes the whole thing work better, in everybody's interest. Until Jon
>Postel's death, people were pretty cool with one person being loosely 'in
>charge' of the DNS (performing what Gillett and Kapor have called the "1%"
>of Internet coordination in their excellent article in Brian Kahin and
>James
>Keller's 1997 book, _Coordinating the Internet_), but the significance of
>that 1% has risen steadily along with amazon.com's share price. Both
>levels
>are ridiculously overblown and bear little relation to reality, but they
>demonstrate the incredible expectations that the world has of this humble
>network.
Maybe, but if I sell 100 shares of amazon.com's stock, it yields real
money, inflated price or not. This is a position of fear.
>
>Some would prefer that nobody be in charge, others would prefer that
>responsibility be distributed somehow, while others would like to see the
>USG remain in charge. The trick is finding the right balance. What I've
>tried to push is the idea that we all share this thing, that there are
>common elements which nobody owns, but which, on one scenario (that of
>preserving universal connectivity), must be coordinated. Who has the
>authority to do so? Damned good question. I don't think anybody knows.
>Who has authority to coordinate international civil aviation. Probably no
>one. But for everyone's sake, a governance structure has been created and
>maintained. It increases the usefulness of the network to everyone's
>advantage. I guess what I'm saying is that either no one will coordinate
>the Internet, or a legitimate international body will have to be created to
>continue the unquestionably valuable work of IANA.
The governance Internet is gaining many of the qualities of quantum
physics... the further defined the control, the less control there is. Try
to define a position as a particle, it behaves like a wave.
>
> Whoever runs the dominant
>identifier system does accrue certain power. The current system is what
>the
>public thinks of as the Internet. That system has been governed since its
>inception. That governance structure is now evolving, and steps away from
>the IANA root are steps away from the public Internet, which many people
>think exists, and would like to see continue to exist.
Maybe, but this position of safety is, again, a position of fear and will
fail. There has always been a single entity, but that does not mean it
must be a single entity at this level of control.
>
>It seems ICANN can do no right.
I think it is more that ICANN has DONE no right. Thye could start (and
gain some public confidence) by following their own Bylaws.
>
>Craig McTaggart
>Graduate Student
>Faculty of Law
>University of Toronto
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Gene...
+++++++++++++++++++++
I'm very happy @.HOME(sm)
Gene Marsh
president, anycastNET Incorporated
