On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Patrick Corliss wrote:
Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@civicnet.org> wrote:
For the Internet to work, at least with currently accepted DNS standards, everyone has to use the same root servers. Otherwise things can rapidly degenerate into chaos. The whole point of law and due process is that a duly authorized somebody has to have the authority to insist that everyone use the same root servers.
Sorry, Miles, it's not true. It's just ICANN FUD.
I respectfully disagree, at least in part.
Read carefully, Andrew McLaughlin is saying there's a need for uniqueness as otherwise the same name will resolve in different ways. He is arguing, like you, that the *only* way to resolve the problem is with a unique (read "ICANN") root.
I probably should have said, in the first place, that if there are multiple roots, they need to be authoritative. One can envision a number of ways for that to be implemented - most of which would seem to require a human arbiter to settle disputes (if not ICANN, then some other body). re. Karl Auerbach's comments:
"What I would say to the House Commerce Committee were I invited to testify" by Karl Auerbach.
2. Multiple Roots are "a good thing"
We routinely use directory services in a multiplicity of forms -- telephone books published by local telephone companies or entrepreneurs, 411 services in various shapes and forms, web pages, or even on CD-ROMs (indeed a well known Supreme Court case involved a telephone directory published on CD-ROM).
I would suggest that telephone books/directories are not an appropriate analogy. Rather, DNS is a lot closer to the internal plumbing of the net - more akin to Signalling System #7. I'd guess that for 95% or more of phone calls, the caller already knows the numeric phone number in question - while for the Internet, very few people give their email addresses as mfidelman@207.226.172.79 or http://207.226.172.79. Telephone directories are optional in most cases, DNS is not. Yes, the Internet can function on numeric IP addresses alone - but unlike the phone network, people don't give out email addresses or URLs containing their numeric host addresses. Regarding the rest of Karl's article, talking aout a completely open world of multiple root servers. I am simply reminded of the days when we had rapid additions to the range of area codes an local exchanges. I remember numerous times when I could not make a call from a company's PBX - because that PBX's software hadn't been updated, and didn't recognize the validity of some new area code or exchange. I've also encountered this problem with software not recognizing new zip codes. At least with phone numbers and zip codes, we don't have the problem of overlapping namespaces - there are clearly established legal and regulatory authorities that manage the telephone numbering and postal code namespaces. I suggest that there are three very specific problems that need to be addressed: - propagation of new namespace information - uniqueness of namespace information. - avoiding namespace hijacking As long as there is a single set of root nameservers, run by a single, accountable organization, these are easy problems. As soon as one admits of multiple root servers, the following problems have to be addressed: - the operational problems of dealing with incomplete propogation of information (particularly when dealing with the clueless: "what do you mean you can't find my web site, I registered it with new.net") - an official way to deal with conflicts between overlapping top level domains (dealing with the trademark issues is bad enough, but where does someone go to fight out ownership of "good.sex" when 100s of different people register it with competing registrars) -- I'm not saying we can't come up with an arbitration scheme and somebody with the clout to enforce decisions, just that one will be needed. In the current system, as with phone numbers and area codes, there simply is no way that the same domain can be assigned to multiple people. - a similarly offical mechanism for dealing with conflicts when different registrars, above board or otherwise, provide different information for the same domain In other words, we need an authorized international body with the clout to oversee the whole mess. But then, isn't that what ICANN is supposed to be? (Or would you rather have the ITU oversee the Internet?) Speaking as someone who hosts a whole bunch of web sites and web sites, I see a world of profit-motivated, competing rootservers as creating an incredible number of problems that I'd just as soon not have to deal with. ************************************************************************** The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618 Miles R. Fidelman, President & Newtonville, MA 02460-0006 Director, Municipal Telecommunications Strategies Program 617-558-3698 fax: 617-630-8946 mfidelman@civicnet.org http://civic.net/ccn.html Information Infrastructure: Public Spaces for the 21st Century Let's Start With: Internet Wall-Plugs Everywhere Say It Often, Say It Loud: "I Want My Internet!" **************************************************************************