<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga-roots] response to Crispin Internet-draft
Analysis of the Crispin Internet-draft.
The draft is based on two assumptions, both easily questioned.
One: "I implicitly postulate that multiple roots exist
and are in heavy use and that the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has somehow
approved of them."
That assumption is self-contradictory. If ICANN
has "approved" of multiple roots, why would it not
coordinate the contents of its root zone file with
them? What would "approval" consist of, if not some
kind of coordination or avoidance of duplication?
Two: he assumes that multiple roots would not converge
on a coordinated zone file. In other words, his very
definition of a "multiple root regime" assumes that
registries, Internet service providers, and consumers
will heedlessly create and buy conflicting names in a
fragmented name space.
That assumption is inconsistent with what we
know about the the economics of standards competition,
and for the most part is contradicted by the current
behavior of alternate root operators.
Once these two assumptions are made, multiple roots
are equated with a *completely uncoordinated* root
zone file. Crispin uses most of the draft telling us
how horrible name collisions and uncoordinated zone
files are. But as far as I know, no person advocates
name collisions (except perhaps the Board members who
selected .BIZ, but that's another story).
In short, the whole draft is an enthusiastic whacking
of a straw man.
But the most fundamental problem with this draft is
that, like RFC 2826, it diverts our attention from the
real policy issues we face.
The issue we face is not: are alternate roots "good"
or "harmful"?
Alternate roots do in fact exist. No one can prevent
them from existing, because te selection of a root
server to point to is a voluntary act by ISPs and
end-user client software.
So in reality, the question we need to answer is:
if alternate roots do exist, how should ICANN relate to them?
If ICANN "endorses" other roots, then it would of
course coordinate its TLD selections with them, and
there would be fewer if any name collisions.
If ICANN doesn't "endorse" other roots, then.....then
what? Should it adopt TLDs that conflict with ones
publicly in use by alternate root servers? If, like
Crispin, one purports to be an enemy of fragmentation
and name collisions, the answer should be NO. The
other alternative is to ignore other roots and pretend
they don't exist. That may be easy to do if they are
small and helpless, but what if they get big? At some
point, one has to consider coordination.
Or is Crispin saying is that he wants ICANN, or
someone, to make it illegal to run an alternate root?
This would involve regulating the configuration of
every computer connected to the Internet, and defining
what technology and service provider everyone had to
use. It would be like a law dictating that everyone
had to use the same computer operating system to
avoid "instability." To me, that cure sounds worse
than the disease. But at this stage we need to
concentrate on identifying facts and defining options,
not on making normative judgments.
What to do about multiple roots is an important,
serious question. Crispin's draft is too focused on demonizing alternative roots to contribute any
substantive answers.
It is an excellent example of how the DNSO should
NOT approach the multiple roots issue.
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|