Re: [DNSOP] [EXT] Re: draft-schanzen-gns and draft-ietf-dns-alt-tld

[David Conrad <[e-mail]>]

Martin,

On Aug 4, 2022, at 12:01 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> But the resolution protocol is technology-neutral. I invite you to re-read the draft. We are not proposing a namespace.

Right. If I understand correctly, you are proposing to use the existing domain name namespace, and that’s where the problem lies.

Because of the way applications have been written and users have been trained, there is precisely one global "domain name” namespace.  It is a series of labels separated by ‘.’s” at the presentation layer. As applications and end users cannot distinguish the underlying protocol by which names are resolved simply from the name, the fact that the protocol is “technology-neutral” (whatever that means) is irrelevant. Since the domain name namespace is hierarchical, there can be only one designated administrator for each branch of the global name space. Note that that administration can be centralized or decentralized, but if it is decentralized, it must be coordinated, i.e., the multiple authorities can’t just go off and partition the namespace by themselves and expect those partitions to have global uniqueness.

> The possibility for the user to modify local configurations is as benign as a modification of /etc/hosts or Nsswitch.

Sure. And to what will those users/applications that do not modify /etc/hosts or use nsswitch, which will undoubtedly be the vast majority, send their queries?  And what happens when someone who “plays by the rules” and goes through the ICANN “global multi-stakeholder defined" process (e.g., the folks who obtained .pet) obtains the same portion of the domain name namespace you have chosen for GNS?

I believe (and I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong) a major reason there is a moratorium on the process defined in RFC 6761 is because of a lack of clarity about who has authority over the administration of the single, global domain name namespace that you want to insert a name into. Some believe that authority is ICANN and others believe your usage would fall under “technical use” (whatever that means) and thus, be in the realm of the IETF. Complicating matters, the existing processes for TLD allocation at ICANN simply did not envision this particular usage and even if it did, the "new round”, known in ICANNland as “Subsequent Procedures”, is still (probably) years off.

The implication of all of this is the quagmire you find yourself in. In my view, you should be commended for trying to do “the right thing” but that doesn’t solve your problem. Pragmatically speaking, and to perhaps state the obvious, I see 4 options:

1) Wait for ICANN to fix their processes
2) Wait for the IETF to figure out whether/how to reopen the “Special Use Domains” registry
3) Try to bypass (1) and/or (2) by publishing through the ISE (I don’t know enough about the ISE process to guess whether this is appropriate or feasible)
4) Squat on a name like various other folks (Unstoppable Domains, Handshake, Butterfly, Namecoin, etc.) have done and hope (1) or (2) will happen and recognize the name you squatted on.

Did I miss anything?

Thanks,
-drc