[discuss] So-called alternate roots

David Conrad drc at virtualized.org
Sun Jan 5 02:06:27 UTC 2014


On Jan 4, 2014, at 4:10 PM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:
> Or do you have an agenda against responsible people trying to be neutral, realistic, and open minded?

Quite the contrary. I personally don't consider calling something a "status-quo smokescreen" that they're uninterested in discussing "neutral, realistic, and open minded", but that's probably just me.

>> I'd probably say it represents a venue in which such debates may occur.  Asserting that the various contributors are "trying to consolidate their positions" would appear to be your personal and subjective evaluation that appears to lack concrete evidence.
> So you think they just discuss without any purpose?

Not sure how you derive that out of what I said.

> That they do not want to build and consolidate a consensus?

To me "consolidating a consensus" does not equate with "consolidate their positions". I agree with the former. I do not see sufficient evidence to assert the latter as you did.

> And you really want people to trust this "airplane in flight"????

What I want is irrelevant. People have been doing so since the Internet's creation. As the Internet has matured, folks responsible for critical components of the infrastructure have increased their efforts to minimize disruption as they upgrade their parts of the infrastructure, but as it is not possible to simulate the full Internet for purposes of testing or do an instantaneous/flag day upgrades of all systems on the Internet, the pragmatic reality is that you actually do end up 'fixing the airplane in flight'.

I'm surprised this shocks you.

> Unless testers are irresponsible what they need is guidance, expertise, MS testing governance
> Denying the need for a technical internet governance is denying the practical coordination - hence the practical capacity - for community testing and therefore Internet technology innovation. You only do not want community testing if you want status-quo.

I see Brian's frustration with the term "internet governance".

I suspect we're talking past each other. A common definition of the Internet is that it is a set of interconnected, largely privately owned and operated networks that share a common set of protocols (most of which are defined within the IETF). IETF standards are not mandates and there is no Protocol Police to enforce "MS testing governance" (whatever that might be). What there is is consensus-based coordination of resources (e.g., protocol parameters, addresses, names) and operations. Within particular subsets of Internet operations (perhaps what you're calling "communities"?), you'll find extensive testing regimes designed to ensure what they're deploying works (or at least doesn't break too much) but there is no top-down centralized authority mandating this testing.  This is part of what has made the Internet a hotbed of innovation: you don't need anyone's permission to test new stuff.

>> No one is stopping the "let's use classes for multiple roots" folks from experimenting and coming up with the perfect multi-root solution.  However, no one is forcing (or even can force) the rest of the Internet to even notice, much less play along.  That's decentralization for you.
> How professionnally, technically, politically responsible this sounds!

Glad you like it. It seems to work.

> All I note is: these are the position of a former IANA manager. A contradiction with the conditions listed by ICANN ICP-3.

ICP-3 states that ICANN is committed to "a unique, authoritative root for the DNS" and explains what that means. What I said in no way contradicts ICANN's position as documented in ICP-3. No one, ICANN included, can stop folks from doing whatever experiments they want just as no one, ICANN included, can force anyone to pay attention to those experiments. If those experiments prove successful and provide benefits that people want, then they'll migrate to the new system on their own.

> So there are diverging positions within ICANN as well as with the IETF.

Differences of opinion between ICANN and the IETF? Sure. Lots. However, the issue of multiple roots isn't one of them as far as I'm aware.

> How do you want users to trust the I*people?  

In general, I've found people trust what works.

> Frightning when one considers that the world economy depends on the IANA .

I gather you do not understand what IANA does.

> David, are you realizing that you just tell Govs, ITU and the rest of the world: "Go ahead and compete with ICANN, we do not demand a transition to be organized"?

Clearly, they didn't need me to tell them, e.g.:


You seem to believe there is an over-arching authority figure who allows or disallows governments/the ITU/the rest of the world from competing with ICANN. That's not how the Internet (or governments for that matter) works. You might want to re-read Phillip's note (http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-January/000511.html) on this thread. There is a reason people keep repeating "bottom-up, consensus driven". To date, the network effect has meant that pretty much everybody makes use of ICANN, the RIRs, and IETF and W3C standards despite their warts. 

>> Perhaps related, I note that you chose not to answer:
>>>> 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?
>> I gather your answer to the above questions is "no".
> Obviously, it is "yes".

OK, can you provide URLs to the server software, resolution libraries, applications and the user community?  I'm honestly quite curious.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140104/1a868cf1/signature.asc>

More information about the discuss mailing list