Re: Revisiting - Re: Now: Next Generation Domains and DNS -- Was: Re: No More Central Authority: Not NSI/ICANN! Not ORSC!

[Einar Stefferud <[e-mail]>]

Someone said:
>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;-)...

Cheers...\Stef