Re: [Internetgovtech] Transition to the web

[John Curran <[e-mail]>]

On Jul 15, 2014, at 1:33 PM, Eric Burger <[e-mail]> wrote:

> If the proposal is to have gobs of new registries, that’s a bad idea. Been there and luckily not too much bad happened, but one can envision how lots of badness can happen in the future.
> 
> However, if the proposal is to have gobs of redundant, distributed, cryptographically secure (meaning compromise is obvious) of an allocation data base, that is an excellent idea. BitCoin works without a centralized data base, so we have existence proofs, too. I vaguely recall something about “working code” and the IETF…
> 
> That could work for IP address allocation, which would admittedly be a less than ideal situation for the RIR’s businesses. For this scheme to work for the parameters directory, we would need a technology such that only the IETF Trust (as holder of the copyright) could update it. I really do not see it working for the DNS root zone, because what goes in, and what does not go in, is a matter of politics, not a matter of a sufficient number of uncompromised nodes agreeing on what a value is.

There's no reason for the IETF shouldn't explore new and innovative
mechanisms for identifier coordination, as long as the resulting 
identifiers are useful to the affected community (remember that one 
side effect of the current mechanisms is some degree of routing 
aggregation for routine cases.)  If a better mechanism comes along, 
the affected community is very likely figure out how to fund it 
one way or the other.

(However, I think much of the present IANA Stewardship discussion 
should be focused on how to keep the current IANA model running in 
a proposed post-NTIA world, since there's quite a bit of real-world
reliance on it today)

/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.