<html>
<body>
At 07:11 25/02/2014, manning bill wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">By definition, a root server,
serves the global Internet, is designed to respond to queries generated
from -EVERYWHERE- on the global Internet. </blockquote><br><br>
Bill,<br><br>
Thank you for the clarification. <br>
A root file is a vision of the global internet name space (and actually
more) from a given point of view that is figured by the final
"empty" dot.<br><br>
By the definition of the VGNs (Virtual Global Network) concept (i.e. a
virtual network vision covering the whole catenet):<br><br>
- a top zone server serves its users to access the global catenet. <br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>- in using its VGNIC (virtual global networks
information center)'s root file. <br>
- Some VGNs can be open, specialized, or closed. The purpose of the
HomeRoot experimentation should be to understand how the VGNICS (virtual
global network information center system) should work to fully support
the DNS needed, unique single and comprehensive map of each
class.<br><br>
To answer your question posed to Elisabeth:<br>
- we will discuss some practicalities, at a Free ISP monthly members
meeting in France, probably next week.<br>
- then
<a href="http://doodle.com/u9wnrr3quz3f8fmy">
http://doodle.com/u9wnrr3quz3f8fmy</a> on March 11 in Paris, the day
after the French IGF. <br>
- the target is to prepare a coordinated/concerted project at the IUCG
OpenCamp during the Montpellier (France) FLOSS RMLL meeting, during the
second week of July.<br><br>
<br>
As Gregory pointed it out, the first need is of a consistent terminology.
<br><br>
At the beginning of the WGIDNAbis, I had committed, once IDNA2008 would
be consensually adopted, to document atop and test an ML-DNS (ML was
standing for multi-ledger registry, some of these ledgers being able to
take care of linguistic classes as suggested by ICANN ICP-3). The target
was that every language could be treated on an equal effillient footing
with English in using Patrik Falstr�m�s DNS vision of Unicode plus some
ISO 10646 missing orthotypographic attributes (like French
majuscules).<br><br>
This calls for a presentation layer six that we located at an Intelligent
Use Interface (IUI) hosting some "Plugged Layers on the User
Side". Its provision of extended services to the user must either
stay transparent to the other side or be able to interact with its IUI
(or with many others services in an "agoric" [i.e. polylectic]
way). During the WG period, we used to discuss the virtual network
created by these IUIs as the "internet+" (that Google also
used). The term "InterPLUS" was also used. <br><br>
Then, the status of RFC 5895 (which permitted the consensus on IDNA as
exemplifying the way the internet architecture supports diversity by
subsidiarity at the fringe) was disputed: there was a need for a better
inclusion of multilinguistics within the catenet concept and IDNA in its
internet architecture. <br><br>
- the MINC (Multilingual Internet Name Consortium) was politically
hijacked and was not able to introduce any project over IDNA2008.<br>
- we had created Eurolinc with Louis Pouzin. It is active in different
areas but Europe is a big machine.<br>
- IAB was open but never concluded at the architectural level.<br>
- an appeal of mine showed that the IETF was interested/concerned by
fringe to fringe issues but that they were outside of its scope. <br>
- the IUCG was created with Russ Housley in order to house these kinds of
IUsers concerns and I investigated the IUTF (for fringe to fringe) on the
IRTF model.<br>
- IETF created several WGs to integrate IDNA2008 concepts.<br>
- personal constraints and the fear of coaxing crime in the picture, due
to the expected transition delays, prevented me from initiating an ML-DNS
bold work and testing. <br><br>
Then, Snowden raised the level of awareness so much that crime could not
become an unnoticed danger, IETF added works, new computer languages, and
architectures have emerged, cyberwar issues are acknowledged, ISOC led
the I*coalition effort in the standardization paradigm area with the
result OpenStand, ICANN /1net joined the net oriented OpenStand
signatories/endorsers and attempted its Sao Paulo US/multilateral
compromise. So when Mike Roberts accurately described the States' (every
State) e-hysteresis, it was clear that the time was ripe for pressing for
a change in the general paradigm from "super user BUG"
("being unilaterally global") to "informed, capable,
intelligent users". I.e. from decentralized hierarchy to MS
heterarchy. From a single INTERNIC to the VGNICSystem. From
interconnected posix to netix. It may take time, but this cannot be
changed. ICANN is a VGNIC among others that (will) document their vision
of the catenet and of its addresses and connected systems.<br><br>
The first impact is that I can probably drop my appeal at ISOC against
RFC 6852. My opposition to RFC 6852 is that its standardization process
is not an MS process. A "superboard" concept is implemented: a
5 head hydra; but it is diluted. No one knows who the ultimate
normalization referent is (except money, but how?). People, Govs, and
industries lose control: an undefined economy takes the lead. <br><br>
<br>
However, if MSism turns from being the core architectonic (computer,
network, governance, languages, OS, etc.) paradigm of the standardization
paradigm, my opposition drops. IUCG can then sign OpenStand after it has
been updated (probably wholeheartedly) in order to read: <br><br>
- "Respectful cooperation between standards organizations, [on a
multistakeholderist basis] whereby each respects the autonomy, integrity,
[area], processes, and intellectual property rules of the
others."<br>
- "contribute to the creation [and the service] of global
communities, benefiting humanity"<br><br>
Now, the whole thing depends on the machines' effilient running code and
the users' positively accepted living mode. This will be tested through
at least three experimental phases:<br><br>
1. A zone mapping tool (EZOP: exploration de la zone primaire);<br>
2. the HomeRoot system configuration. How to best support a DNS
autonomous, sure, and secure service; <br>
3. VGNICSystem governance and mutual servicing. <br><br>
The discussion list is
<a href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg">
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg</a><br>
The VGNICSystem is
<a href="http://vgnics.net/">http://vgnics.net<br><br>
</a>jfc </body>
</html>