Ed and all,
Well done here Ed. You couldn't be more correct. But as you can
tell from John Patricks own words, is that this is not of great concern
to the GIP , IBM or the ICANN for that matter.
Ed Gerck wrote:
> John:
>
> I applaud your initiative of coming forward with a reasoning for the actions
> of IBM regarding domain names. You must believe the reasoning yourself,
> as I can see from your words, and this is also very positive.
>
> But, what if IBM and you are making some basic wrong assumptions? I mean,
> wrong technical assumptions? Then, not only will IBM and you be putting
> all your eggs in one basket but you will also have provided proof of lack of
> due diligence to that very same "Internet community" that you desire to lead
> and be useful for.
>
> What do I mean by "putting all your eggs in one basket"? The metaphor is
> precise, I mean putting all Internet management under one hood, one rule, one
> policy, one law. This, which at first might be thought as beneficial goes counter
> the very history of trade and law itself -- since we do find value in diversity, we
> do find value in using different rules for different purposes, we do find value in
> separating governing powers so as to introduce a system of checks and balances,
> and we also do find value in different laws for different countries, for different
> states in one country an even for different communities in one state. Why would
> the Internet, being much larger, be different? Or, have different needs?
>
> Of course, the above is a systemic reason of wrong assumptions in the current IBM
> Weltanschaung, but one which requires non-technical arguments as well. Now, to
> provide you with one technical example of wrong assumptions, which cannot be denied
> even by mustering oneself on successful totalitarian regimes that can rule over a
>billion
> people, let me just quote your own text:
>
> John Patrick wrote:
>
> > Because the Internet is made up of many heterogeneous and
> > separately-managed networks, the early Internet inventors and pioneers
> > realized that a central third party was needed to manage the assignment of
> > domain names and network addresses so that "www.myfavoritewebsite.com"
> > always translated to the correct address, even though different users would
> > consult different servers to do the translation.
>
> The above is false in totum because its central argument, that "a central third
> party was needed to manage the assignment of domain names", is false. The
> DNS was created exactly to avoid that, which was the case of the old HOSTS.TXT
> file. The mechanism of zone delegation in DNS allows the assignment of domain
> names to be fully decentralized, and yet globally unique and meaningful.
>
> The only object that needs to be centralized in the DNS is a common reference for
> *name resolution* -- which is the root name-server. To take over *name assignment*
> by confusing it with name resolution is an over-reaching action, unjustified by
> any technical argument even in the current DNS (i.e., even outcounting eventual but
> certain technological improvements and paradigm changes in the DNS). Which
> over-reaching spills over to "management of domain name resolution policy",
> "management of registrars" and so on -- creating pressing problems, not solving
> them.
>
> Further, by placing the decisions of network address assignment (IP numbers) together
> with DNS matters in one basket, you are uniting what is, by design, separate. The
>needs
> of network traffic (IP) are independent of the needs of user services (DNS). They
>also
> serve different goals, and different customers. They do not belong together.
>
> So, IBM and you are basing your course of action on reasons which are unreasonable.
> So, please accept that not everyone may wish to put all their eggs into that basket,
> even though that basket is the only one you see at this time.
>
> Of course, you may still argue that the "one basket" approach has been made very
> solid. Indeed, that "one basket" is:
>
> 1. not market-accountable (a non-profit with no measurable market value in stock
> shares, for example),
>
> 2. not community-accountable (no elections),
>
> 3. not anti-trust accountable (it is a government appointed company, and the
> government can only appoint one company),
>
> 4. not legally-accountable (has no assets to be put at stake; has no owner),
>
> 5. allows registrars and registries to be also non-accountable (a TLD registry can
> say that it do not choose the registrar, the registrar was chosen and imposed; a
> TLD registrar can say that the rules make it just a pass-through service), and
>
> 5. makes end-users the only entity accountable in the entire system, the only ones
> that can be sued and the only ones that may lose anything (time, money and
> domain names).
>
> Finally, in my reasoning, such a finesse of seeking lack of accountability in all
>levels
> of name control can only be justified because it was presumed by its creators
> to be necessary for a central control system -- the one basket. The fact, however,
> that no one needs to control name assignment is however a reason for the eggs
> not to be put into what has become a trap. And, the more solid and unified the
> trap is, the less reasons for any egg to be put there. Presumably, not even IBM.
>
> And, let's be candid. The issue is Internet and information control. Yes, certainly,
> people would bemoan a sloppy internet. But they would scream long and loud if
> it were highly controlled (to the local level).
>
> At this point, you may ask what the solution is. If this is the case, I have
>succeeded
> in the initial goal I set forth for this short message, in my second opening
>paragraph.
> Because, once we question pre-concepts, we can move forward. Not before,
> unfortunately.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ed Gerck
> ______________________________________________________________________
> http://www.mcg.org.br/authors/eg.htm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
