[discuss] Fwd: Possible approaches to solving "problem no. , etc.
mg at telepresse.com
Sat Feb 15 02:03:14 UTC 2014
just a minute! I use to take seriously what you say: I have read your
mail twice. I went on http://vgnic.org. I cliqued on
http://iucg.org/wiki/VGNICs. Where is the flaw?
Am I correct in understanding that you say:
1. the internet as we know it is a "catenet" à la Louis Pouzin, i.e.
""the collection of packet networks which are connected together".
2. It is to be understood as a common collective infrastructure
allowing every of us (as stakeholders) to manage his/her own VGN
through his/her own NIC, along his/her own VPN governance, the same
as does the ARPANET/ICANN INTERNIC stake holder?
3. This includes the possibility for each of us to run his/her own
root server system. I understand that this is the same thing as does ORSN?
4. This means that the DNS metadata of our calls on the internet are
not logged anymore outside of my control?
5. It means that my domain name resolution is entirely carried on my
machine without recursion so no danger of fake response?
7. This means that I do not need DNSSEC?
8. This means that one can do, use it to study, many things. What I
am not sure I fully understand is if how, if everyone has his root
how can you continue to talk of "class unique authoritative roots"?
I have reviewed the different points made against any root system
different from the ICANN solution.
- I understand you use the Class mecanism, but what about CNAMES?
- I do not understand what is "ezop"?
- what is the difference between a "free top zone situational report"
and "paid executive orders".
- I find some logic in your notion of governance of governances for
the network of networks. However, for me a governance is mainly about
new TLDs and IP addresses. Two things you cannot control, except for
your local network?
Then, let suppose this is not a joke (you seem serious about not
polluting the DNS), how are you going to implement it?
At 18:27 14/02/2014, JFC Morfin wrote:
>At 22:42 13/02/2014, Mike Roberts wrote:
>>However much many of us might dislike it, the fact is that the U.S.
>>Congress and senior govt ministries hold trump cards if a proposal
>>emerges that offends them. In the present atmosphere of worldwide
>>terrorist attacks and threats, they are easily offended.
>>Although some might favor a proposal that dwells on the many
>>deficiencies of USG behavior toward ICANN and IANA, it would be
>>much more productive to have one that results in the active
>>engagement of the U.S. in making it happen, rather than being
>>consigned to the large dustbin of schemes that attracted political
>>disfavor. The wording of Ian's PS above is the type of thing that
>Squaring the circle is always complex, but I think you are definitely right.
>This is why the only non hurting way to proceed is by superior law:
>the internet law, which is the source code. The code documented in
>7,500 RFCs, that is implemented everywhere and that not even the
>U.S. Congress, senior ministries, executive orders, USCC action,
>Academics, Techies, CS lawyers, HR activists, and business interests
>can modify (look at the delay for IPv6).
>This is exactly what ICANN organized (your July 2001 Internet
>Coordination Policy statement no. 3) and that the "HomeRoot"
>experimentation project is to strictly and fully respect in order to
>investigate an MS grassroots internet governance system, or as a set
>of local, national or global community [cf. RFC 6852] democratic or
>not governance systems if the MS grassroots so decide,
>* in parallel to the U.S. Congress' ARPANET interneting (i.e.
>virtual global network) governance vested
>* with a good cooperation spirit: our vitual networks share the
>common physical catenet on an equal footing.
>A governance of the governances should then emerge for the network
>of networks (or an intergovernance? My 10 year old
><http://intergovernance.org/>http://intergovernance.org site is
>still unchanged). Rather than fragmenting the internet, it will
>pile global governances with the same interest for a unique and
>global multilingual, multitechnology and multitrade system,
>dramatically augmenting its resillience.
>I doubt that there is any other way to address this problem in any
>other manner (it being dictatorial, democratic, MSist, consensual,
>etc.) because it is an entangled (networked) set of legitimacies,
>capacities, interests, greed, technical protocols, management
>applications, languages, sovereignties, etc. under the constant
>duress of competition, crime, disruption actions, normative
>competition and cyber warfare, egos, lack of understanding,
>misunderstandings, and budgetary issues.
>Now the concept of simultaneous VGNs has started being discussed on
>the IUCG mailing list (http://vgnic.org), the HomeRoot project will
>provide it the neecssary core. The "EZoP" project (standing for
>"Evaluation de la Zone Primaire", i.e. top zone exploration) should
>come in parallel. Its purpose will be to document the current real
>status of the root zone. Obviously, the HomeRoot approach removes
>the danger of name space pollution, drastically limits the risks of
>metadata leaks and attacks, and probably speeds-up the resolution
>process average time. It will most probably help the experimentation
>of Content Centric and Semantic networking, LISP, IUI (Intelligent
>Use Interface) and multitechnology and IDNA2008/enhanced
>multilinguistic support, DNS Classes, Virtual Global Community
>Networks, IUse documentation and teaching, distributed processing
>and programming, multihomming based security, intellition
>(relational intelligence to infer non communicated information)
>applied R&D, and more generally the developpement and deployement of
>the missing presentation layer six and the resulting added capabilities.
>We will then learn about the possible specific needs in terms of MS
>internetwork intergovernance and information repositories. Then, we
>will be probably more able to document our needs and possibilities.
>We will then discuss mutual cooperation among VGNs, including the
>"globalized" ARPA/NTIA ICANN and IANA, and with different US FCC
>national equivalents (maybe the new ICANN is by then supervised by a
>neutral communication authority).
>>One additional point to consider in constructing a new arrangement
>>is that Verisign operates the master root server, from which all
>>the updates are distributed to other servers, under a contractual
>>cooperative agreement that is entirely separate from USG links to
>>ICANN. It would not accomplish much in the way of global IG MS if
>>we got the IANA changes, but the Department of Commerce and
>>Verisign continued, as they do today, to have a choke hold on
>>updates to the A server.
>Signed agreements are made to be respected.
>1. In an HomeRoot VGN context this has far less impact since there
>is no globally accessible recursion. This should, however be
>addressed through digital name classes if there was no possible
>conflict resolution between VGNICs considering class unique
>authoritative roots as either free top zone situational reports or
>paid executive orders.
>2. All what WGNICs needs is a single copy of the U.S. Department of
>Commerce version of the IN (ICANN/NTIA) class public root file as it
>used to be available on the U.S. InterNIC site licensed to ICANN.
>The target now is to discuss and introduce a VGN "HomeRoot"
>experimentation I_D, and start developping a few HOMENIC
>installation/management tools. Most of the experimentation consists
>in a real live check that (1) not a single bit is to be changed, (2)
>there is no DNS pollution and (3) users do not experiment access
>errors and (4) are immune to ICE actions.
At 18:47 14/02/2014, Jefsey wrote:
>Just to add an ICANN related point to vitual global network
>governance. The only one today is the INTERNIC. Plenty of them will
>come-up. ICANN has carried its by-laws job to "foster competition"
>and is welcome to join the VGNIC project. http://vgnic.org.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss