[discuss] So-called alternate roots

[S Moonesamy]

Hi Michel,
At 19:45 03-01-2014, Michel Gauthier wrote:
>Questions to everyone:
>
>1. is RFC 1034 correctly understood by ICANN?

Andrew Sullivan posted an explanation about DNS CLASS etc.

The article has text about the technical need for a single 
authoritative root.  I would describe it as a design decision for the 
computers on the network to use the same reference system to locate 
the services on that network.  It is possible to have several 
reference systems.  Someone will have to solve the problem which was 
solved previously if people would like that network to work as it works now.

I'll skip the second question.

>3.3. what is the situation of the Chinese DNS? How the i-DNs plug-in 
>qualifies? As an alternate-version of the ICANN/NTIA class, as an 
>alternate root among the few roots, or as an alternate DNS?

I am not sure what the "Chinese DNS" is.  I'll stick to the DNS CLASS 
in the explanation which was posted.  The IDNs uses the same DNS CLASS.

>4. ICANN has sold the exclusive uses of Internet TLD names without 
>specifying it was only for the "ICANN/NTIA" ("IN") class. What does 
>prevent anyone to set-up a "private-use class" global name space, 
>supporting the same and more or less TLDs as/than those of the 
>ICANN/NTIA class, that anyone using a "client or applications 
>software" also supporting that [private-use class] namespace" may 
>resolve? Should not inter-root administrators governance to be 
>set-up to avoid confusions, discuss IP issues, and foster 
>coopetition be part of the IG? It seems that this has a technical 
>governance part, from what you say?

As far as I am aware there isn't anything stopping a person from 
setting up another name space.  There is a domain name system in use 
to avoid confusion.  Creating another system to foster competition 
may cause confusion for the consumer.

I don't think the above is a technical governance part.  It is a part 
about which people (or businesses) have different opinions about.

>5. There are on-going rumor about the discussion in Sao Paulo of 
>specialized (experimental) classes, in particular in the "IoT" area 
>where Fadi Chehade would like to strike anIANA deal with GS1, as it 
>is permitted by the one you explained you signed for the IETF.

I gather that "IoT" refers to the Internet of Things.  I don't see 
why a specialized (DNS) CLASS is needed for that.  Using a 
specialized (DNS) CLASS would create what some people might consider 
as technical problems.

The problem with names is that they can be used in unexpected 
places.  There is a likelihood that the interpretation of some of the 
names might trigger a (software) vulnerability.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy