[discuss] So-called alternate roots
Michel Gauthier
mg at telepresse.com
Sun Jan 5 00:54:12 UTC 2014
At 19:34 04/01/2014, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote:
>Michel,
>I don't think you are doing anyone a favor (including yourself) by
>this gross oversimplification. If you need a few snappy preliminary
>conclusions, I would rather offer something along the lines outlined below.
Dear Peter,
I am only talking of my /1NET experience and evaluation. Pablo
Hinojosa carried some stats on the written contributions, I am
interested in evaluating the impact of /1NET and LOG and, further on,
Sao Paulo on the Digisphere.
Your review is a serious one. You are an European. I am really
interested. Let proceed.
>1) 1net is a new venue to discuss complex Internet governance issues
>between governments, business, civil society and the technical
>experts that know how the Internet works.
I am sorry, but those who really know how the internet works are the
lead users, then the industrial users and the end users..
>The goal is to come to a rough consensus amongst all participants
>about the things that need to be tackled first in order to assure a
>continued well-functioning Internet and to move beyond discussions
>to recommendations and possibly actions.
By who?
> Insofar as 1net concentrates
Who is "1net"? There are 600 people. So let say "the people who
consider that the 1net list may be an interesting forum, seem to concentrate".
>on actionable items within the powers of participants to change, it
>promises to add to, rather than compete with, the Internet
>Governance Forum, which is a non-binding, non-decision-making forum
>established by the United Nations.
This would be something in total contradiction with MSism.
- MSism means an open documented IGF debate permitting each
stakeholder to take the best decision for him/her in the commonly
discussed context.
- the idea of actionable item and participant powers means at least
coalesced initivatives. Is that the target of /1NET? In which areas?
We are within less than four months from Sao Paulo. Who will be
there? What will be the agenda?
> 2) The participation of all relevant stakeholders in a
> multi-stakeholder environment shall assure that all viewpoints can
> be taken into consideration, including, inter alia, consideration
> for sciences, reality, users, sovereign uses. On a technical level,
> issues expected to be at center stage are e.g. DNS, IPv6/IPv4,
> networking, to name just a few.
Relevant stakeholders are the members of the global markets who
economies is to guide and direct all this. These are industrial,
commercial, lead and end users. Where are they?
The DNS, IPadressing, networking areas I quoted are for the
I*specialists. the I*Users are interested in security, trust,
reliability, quality, neutrality, deployment, costs, infrastructure,
protection, precaution, privacy,intimacy, national laws respect,
police, cyberdefense, multilinguistics, cultures, innovation,
simplicity of use, ubiquity, stability, services, services, and services ...
>3) Because many of the issues are not one-dimensional, but have
>technical, business, policy and societal impacts, there is no simple
>or clear cut answer to many questions, as both the goals of
>participants as well as their explicit or implicit value judgements
>around security, privacy, freedom, respect, trust, etc. play a part.
Yes. There is only one solution to this that has been proposed so far
and unanimously adopted by the nations at the WSIS and by the world
for two centuries, this is the respect, protection, and service of
the person centricity. Everything can and is to focus on this
centricity. This is on what I am interested to report: how the TIC
will help developping the 2014 society in that area along the
millenium objectives? Demanding which innovation, political,
technical, organizational, architectural, financial, and scientific
contribution?
>4) Most participants are however agreeing that the Internet as a
>network of networks that allows everyone on Earth to connect to
>anyone else should be preserved, that the end-to-end principle,
>innovation at the edges, experimentation without doing harm should
>continue to be encouraged.
That people agree does not make it happen. Pragmatic and pratical
work is to be carried. I am here to learn and report how this /1net
debate together with the LOG, in the perspective of Sao Paulo, is to
make this work advanced or delayed, how and why.
So far, I explained that my analysis is inconclusive.
>These lines may not be as newsworthy as a catchy polarization, but
>your readership would eventually get a better picture of what's going on.
My readership perfectly knows the framework you quote. What they want
to know is which decision they can take in order to take advantage of
(or have to take to protect their projects/investments from) the
results of this endeavor.
>While many participants seem to fight with others on various issues,
>all are united in their desire to make the Internet better, more
>robust, safe and stable for everyone.
As everywhere when things are claimed to be on an equal footing, some
are more equal than others. What I try to understand is who is/ill be
more equal than others in Sao Paulo, why, who can take advantage from
it, and how. Hence, what are the strategic priorities that
will/should be engaged.
Best
MG
>Regards
>
>Peter H. Hellmonds
><peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu>
>+49 (160) 360-2852
>
>On 04.01.2014, at 17:52, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:
>
>I am only an analyst who professionnally knows enough things about
>computers, network, people and projects of entrepreneurs I work with
>not to have predetermined positions, and to be open minded about
>innovation and what I report.
>
>At this time:
>
>1. I raised a few questions to know what 1NET was about and what
>people (who are experts or in charge in their field) really think .
>
>2. I thank everyone for the responses I received. What I can report so far is:
>
>* 1NET represents a technical and political internet governance
>debate where Govs, Technicians, multilateral organizations, and
>civil society contributors are trying to consolidate their positions.
>* without any consideration for sciences, reality, users, sovereign
>uses. The same for DNS, IPv6/IPv4, networking architecture, etc.
>* one does not know who to eventually trust and why. MSism means
>political and technical positions, not decisions by others, but by oneselve.
>
>3. The only consensus (actually opposed by everyone's "it cannot
>work") is that one should be able to test everything. It is also not
>documented by any RFC or charter about using the internet as its own
>test-bed for experimenting what is technically and politically disputed.
>
>MG
>
>At 07:08 04/01/2014, David Conrad wrote:
> > Michel,
> >
> > On Jan 3, 2014, at 7:45 PM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote
> > > Questions to everyone:
> >
> > I'll play along.
> >
> > > 1. is RFC 1034 correctly understood by ICANN?
> >
> > Sure (modulo the myriad updates to 1034 that have occurred since
> its publication).
> >
> > > 2. which responsible experimentation has ICANN fostered in 12 years?
> >
> > None that I'm aware of off-hand.
> >
> > > 3. It seems there is a subtile difference between:
> > >
> > > 3.1. the concept of "alternate root" (singular) which is
> opposed on mathematical grounds that everyone can understand (two
> versions of the same hierarchy that can pollute one another). This
> is what you, Vittorio and Nathalie are discussing. I am not
> interested in this ICANN/status-quo smokescreen issue we all know
> the no-interest cons/pros by heart.
> >
> > I suspect you don't fully understand the "ICANN/status-quo
> smokescreen issue" or you probably wouldn't reference it that way.
> >
> > > 3.2. the DNS architecture conceived to support a multiplicity
> of fully separated "alternate roots" (plural) each under its
> separate adminstration, rules, rates, purposes, AoC, etc. As there
> are thousands private ones.
> >
> > Yes, the DNS architecture supports multiple classes. The
> implementation of the DNS on the Internet today, and in particular,
> _all_ the applications currently on the Internet, does
> not. Talking about using different classes to support "alternate
> roots" (assuming that's what you're referencing) is a waste of
> time: instead of updating every name server, resolution library,
> and application on the Internet to support classes, it would be
> infinitely easier/better to simply replace the DNS with something
> less wart-ful.
> >
> > > ICANN and IETF should clarify this terminology before Sao Paulo
> as there are several "alternate root" (singular) administrators
> (plural). and quite a few of private/public "alternate roots"A
> press release would be enough.
> >
> > To be honest, I'm not sure what clarification you're looking for.
> >
> > > 3.3. what is the situation of the Chinese DNS?
> >
> > Since the delegation of IDNs, I'm actually unsure these days.
> >
> > > How the i-DNs plug-in qualifies?
> >
> > Depends on implementation I suppose. If the plug-in partitions
> the namespace to ensure their are no collisions, it has
> re-implemented a singular root via however the partitions are
> imposed. If it does not protect against collisions, then would be
> fit into your 3.1 category above that you say you're not interested in.
> >
> > > As an alternate-version of the ICANN/NTIA class, as an
> alternate root among the few roots, or as an alternate DNS?
> >
> > For clarification, there is no "ICANN/NTIA" class. There is class
> "IN" (0x0001) used in the Internet, class "CH" (0x0003) formerly
> used for MIT's ChaosNet, and class "HS" (0x0004) formerly used for
> MIT's Hesiod service. Presumably, if the plug-ins are supposed to
> work on the Internet, they'll be using class IN albeit potentially
> with collisions.
> >
> > > 4. ICANN has sold the exclusive uses of Internet TLD names
> without specifying it was only for the "ICANN/NTIA" ("IN") class.
> >
> > If you say so -- I haven't bothered to look.
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > Absolutely nothing. Of course, if they wanted to avoid
> collisions with other folks using non-IN classes, they'd need to
> obtain an allocation from IANA via "IETF Review" (see RFC 5226,
> section 4.1), moving the singular root from the DNS into the IANA
> class registry. If they didn't care about collisions, then we get
> back to your 3.1 category above that you say you're not interested in.
> >
> > > Should not inter-root administrators governance to be set-up to
> avoid confusions, discuss IP issues, and foster coopetition be part of the IG?
> >
> > Before we pursue creating a superstructure to facilitate
> inter-root administration, can you point to any non-trivial
> deployment of server software, resolution libraries, or
> applications that support a class other than IN? If so, can you
> point to any non-trivial user community with which discussions can occur?
> >
> > > It seems that this has a technical governance part, from what you say?
> >
> > Not really. For there to be governance, I suspect there actually
> has to be something other than a few lab experiments to govern.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > If you say so. I'd be a bit surprised that the IoT folks would
> want to retard their development/deployment cycles, but I suppose
> odder things have happened. However that's not a question.
> >
> > > It is important to realize that everyone want to know who is
> leading the show and to where. There is a meeting that has been
> agreed between ICANN and Brazil. It seems its preparation boils
> down to an 1NET/LOG cooking. LOG does not respond. ICANN and
> I*society disagree.
> >
> > It isn't clear to me things have progressed to a point where
> there is actual disagreement.
> >
> > > Not easy to understand how corporate users and entrepreneurs
> should consider all this, and what they should possibly participate
> or alternatively proceed.
> >
> > True. However, I suspect the vast majority of corporate users and
> entrepreneurs won't care until they see a potential impact in terms
> of {dollars,yen,euros,bhat,etc}.
> >
> > > 5. So the last question for the day is : is there someone who
> knows where all this is leading to?
> >
> > Um. Sao Paulo, Brazil? If you meant what is all this leading to,
> I suspect more "fine lunches and dinners" in exotic locations :).
> >
> > More seriously, I believe it is an honest effort on the part of
> many folks to provide an umbrella for multi-stakeholder "Internet
> Governance" discussions as I suspect there are very few people who
> understand the issues who think the status quo is ideal. It seems
> clear there needs to be some evolution in the structures/mechanisms
> of "Internet Governance" (however you want to define it) and I
> personally believe that the folks behind 1net.org are trying to
> provide a venue where the issues can be discussed. As a result,
> logically, they're the target of the "Daily Hate". I imagine where
> this actually leads depends on the willingness of the "Internet
> community" (broadly speaking) to play along. To be honest, it
> isn't clear to me that the "Internet community" (broadly speaking)
> has noticed there's an issue that can be addressed via venues like
> 1net.org, but I could be wrong.
> >
> > > Is there anyone in the Internet Cockpit?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization
> >
> > Regards,
> > -drc
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
>http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
More information about the discuss
mailing list