Re: Revisiting - Re: Now: Next Generation Domains and DNS -- Was: Re: No More Central Authority: Not NSI/ICANN! Not ORSC!2002-08-07 07:55:49
Perhaps having multiple roots *with identical information* would be stable and workable, but that requirement inherently negates the motivation for having multiple roots.
This analysis (above) is a little short on completeness.
Needs a few more words.
The key issue is to have one composite root, including all TLDs who wish to be included, with technical requirements for stability, security, and global service, to form what some of us call "The Inclusive Root", as compared to some kind of Exclusive Roots.
Note the plural, because any instance of an Exclusive root must mean that some TLDs must have been Excluded, and so will be present in some other root, which may be the Inclusive root, or may be some other root which is also Exclusive. There can only be One All Inclusive Root.
I believe these words (Inclusive & Exclusive) are well known and that I am using them in their common dictionary meanings. No tricks here.
These two words are really critical for us all to understand, and more or less agree on their meaning and implications. If we cannot get past this point without an argument and a fight, then we are stuck right here.
It is perfectly logical for many users to seek to use a partial root that excludes certain stuff that they wish to be protected from, such as porn, to cite just one form of unwanted content.
I know of, and applaud, one local community ISP that offers services that block selected unwanted content. Of course, all customers of this ISP agree that they want this blocking service, or they would go to an easily accessed competitor. And though I do not subscribe, I applaud those who do, and those who provide this service. Without it, the subscribers would likely not access the Internet at all. Of course, the subscribers EMail addresses are ICANN ROOT resolvable, but are also likely to be filtered for unwanted spam. I now subscribe to an ORSC compatible POP Mailbox service for myself. Works great!
In this kind of mixed world of inclusiveness and selected exclusiveness, it is possible to envision that there is some kind of Composite Inclusive Root that is kept free of collisions through careful and considerate cooperative collegial efforts. This idyllic state may not be easily attained, but it has very high value, so social tendencies will tend to bring it into existence, while other forces might tend to resist any kind of self-organized cooperative arrangement.
There seem to exist some people who cannot countenance existing in a world without someone "in control" from whom it is good to ask and get permission for doing all manner of tings. I do not seem to be one of the lucky few who always have permission to do whatever they do.
The Internet as a whole is pretty much self organized and working amazingly well considering how many people do not like to even think about self organizing systems. But then, I recall that the United States of America was self organized once upon a time, and it seems to be working pretty well, but is not without some faults.
Also he US and the Global Economies are self organized and are not centrally controlled. Central control of economies has gone out of style of late.
Also, it should be noticed, the Internet actually has no "center" in any sense of the word "center" so there is no logical site at which to place a central control point. Sole ownership and control of the Internet disappeared when IP/TCP became dominant and the competitive cooperative IP backbone confederation/association came into being.
The NSF appropriate Use Rules were cast aside by NSF in 1995, and since then central control has withered for all but the DNS, which I see as the last vestigial tail of the original ARPANET. Valiant efforts have been displayed in the efforts to retain this vestigial tail.
But, getting back to the future fate of the DNS;-)...
We only need to avoid collisions and assure technical conformance to standards for service performance, communication, and security.
And we need a structure that will induce mutual trust among the contributors to the Inclusive root service, and its derivative Exclusive (sub)Root services..
Any root service (ISP or other service) that wishes to subset the inclusive root, and sell it to customers who know what they are buying, should be allowed, and if someone wants to sell a fully Inclusive Root Service with some added private TLDs that do not collide with anyone in the Composite Root, I see little reason to prohibit this.
So, the main problem is to establish coordination and cooperation.
Including technical coordination and cooperation which is the forte of IETF. At least it used to be so, there is no reason to let it get away.
Some people prefer to appoint a Name and Numbers czar (as we all lovingly called Jon Postel) to wisely keep things organized and working.
Would that we could build our cooperative arrangement as a monument for Jon.
But, back in the days when ARPANET was a network, and not an Internet, and top down management was the rule. ARPA actually owned the entire network, including all the access ports. Every user of the ARPANET was subject to withdrawal (by ARPA) of access privileges in the event of misbehavior. We all had passwords for TIP access, and passwords on our computers connected to the Internet under APRA contracts. Such an overhanging sword of central control kept most users away from any serious misbehavior. Cooperation was the operative rule then.
But, the advent of IP/TCP allowed other networks, like CSNET and BITNET, and such as CERFnet, and NYSERnet, UUnet, and NorduNet, etc. to connect togehter without having to adhere to the NSFNET Appropriate Use Rules, and thus a self organizing backbone community came into being, and is engaging in self regulated control of the routing of packets though cooperative endeavor.
This kind of organization did not arise for the DNS, perhaps because Steve Wolfe (of NSFNET Fame) somehow did not notice that DNS was in a region of danger of where someone would seize central control, such as DoC, or WIPO, or whoever. And, so, here we are, with a centralized DNS control system. I asked Steve why one day, and he said "I just never thought of it." And I have to admit that I also did not think of it, or I would surely have mentioned it to him. I suspect that nobody thought of it. Routing Packets was much more critical in those days, with serious threats of monopoly takeover or of government control, or maybe even Mafia Control, but those nightmares never came to be, although it is hard to imagine the some of the IP backbone players do not wish the others would give up and go away;-)... Lucky for us, the situation seems to be stable without singular central controllers (or regulators; Just a bunch of cooperating coordinators, thank you very much.
So be it! It is not czarism that I see causing trouble. It is the lack of cooperative collegial interests among all the stakeholders in resolving issues that arise, like collisions, that hamper the formation of broadly acceptable arrangements among the stakeholders.
Building a cooperative stakeholder coordination system is what we need, and what we do not have. Maybe after ICANN crashes itself and burns, a Phoenix will arise from the ashes and fly into the sky above.
Hopefully is will be organized as a cooperative coordination body that might do for DNS what IETF has done in the past for IP/TCP, et al on the technical side of things.
But, clearly, as the tone of this list shows, this is not the place to self organize such a thing as a coordinating body for the DNS. The issues are much too political for the technically oriented and focused IETF to touch.
Sorry for the long length, but this all fell out in one piece.
I can assure you that ORSC is not seeking to become a DNS Czar.
None of us like the idea of czars running things.
Well, maybe in the beginning, before I got involved.
When I arrived in he ORSC game, all the czars had fled.
We now just want to find someone to cooperate with.
Preferably people who are not hell bent to bash our heads in.
But, cooperative head bashers could be useful. Y'all come;-)...