way out of the DNS problems? (former Re: delegation mechanism, Re: Tree

On 10:38 01/08/02, Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu said:
> On Thu, 01 Aug 2002 00:34:55 PDT, Dave Crocker said:
> > This federation that you are describing was formed without any involvement
> > of IANA/ICANN.  It was done entirely independently.
>
> Very true.  It's also true that if I refuse to answer the phone, I will
> not have any phone conversations.
>
> > So the idea that IANA/ICANN was somehow obligated to coordinate its own
> > activities with an independent effort is a very basic non sequitur.
>
> A case could be made that if ICANN was even *pretending* to serve the public
> interest, they could at least enter into a *discussion* with the ORSC people.
> Of course, we all know they won't even do that with their OWN board of
> directors without a court order.
I am sorry to repeat it (and I will try not to say it too many times 
again): the terms of the ".arpa" sub global namespace delegation are 
described in RFC 920 by Jon Postel himself. The creation of ".biz" (as 
.info and others) are not permitted under that delegation. However ICANN 
obviously acted in this along with the DoC recommendation. The question is: 
should ICANN obey the USG or comply with the initial ITU community 
agreement - FCC included. ".biz" could have been a way to make 
Justice/Congress commit on this.
We all are confronted to the age of a stantard agreement which works well 
but of which the involved parties forgot a long ago the standard, the 
rationales, their rights and their duties.
Solution 1. we forget about it and build it anew. Then ICANN, ccTLDs, gTLDs 
lare level with ORSC, New.net, etc. We will need an international forum 
where to discuss and settle a new agreement: this can only be the ITU. I am 
not sure we want that.
Solution 2. we keep going, we trace back the old legitimacies to avoid 
unnecessary wars and most of all we talk together until we reach a global 
common understanding. ICANN in publishing the ICP-3 document shown it wants 
to root in its "permanent" policy, but they also plainly show they want 
neither to consider legitimacies nor to talk.
Solution 3. we keep going but we rebuild anew. This seems to be the 
impossible ICANN policy in building their Intercontract system. It 
obviously does not work and leads to strong oppositions.
The reason why I join the IETF debate is that I think technology may be the 
response. The same as the namespace agreement has aged, the same the 
technology has aged. We are endlessly arguing on old stuff. Aftyer 20 
years, we need a clean sheet review of the DNS, based on today and future 
users' needs. IMHO this goes into two directions: a new DNS core system 
analysis (DNS.2) and an extended DNS services (DNS+) logic. IMHO in going 
ahead in that two directions (as the iDNs show the path) we will soon 
discover that the ICANN preoccupations and solutions are totally outdated 
by what we will uncover and specify.
Obviously we will meet the same kind of oppositions to DNS.2/DNS+ than was 
met for IPv6. The question is then to know if this effort will be carried 
within the IETF or not. I think DNS.2 cannot be specified outside of the 
IETF but a DNS.1.B can. Most of DNS+, which comes before / aside / on top 
of the DNS, can be privately developped, but without proper integration. 
This would lead to a large number of proprietary solutions and to large 
splits in the usage of the network.
So the question is not to know if we have to make that effort or not, but 
if it will be a clean move or not. To take a comparison, situation in the 
DNS today is like if IPv8 was the only option.
Sorry to have been long. This all I had to say.
jfc