Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re:Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>
To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>;
<atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re:Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen
anywhere


> Todd
>
>     There is a compelling logic to your arguments and the scale of your
> vision is to be applauded.

Thanks. I think it is doable too.

> However, you do make the point that while the
> Root Zone Protocol (RZP) required to enable multiple zoning is possible,
it
> ain't here now.  You further make the point that there is no entity with a
> reason (read economic motive) to create either the RZP or the hardware
> necessary to bring your vision to manifestation.

The first RZP proposal draft with hit both the IETF and the ITU (Study Group
2) for comments early next week. I had wanted to have it done today but I
wont finish it. The letter informing the IAB that I think that their One
Root Mandate is counter to the good of the ICANN and the Internet's
propagation as well and is specifically an instant where the available
technology is being used to "restrict and mandate" the form of the Inetrnet
rather than the IETF's doing what is right and 24 months ago building the
RZP. This letter will go to them today.

As to RZP itself, my feeling is that in its first incarnation,  it could be
real within 90 days since its really pretty easy to implement. All the local
Resolver has to do is send a query to a RZP enabled DNS Server and the DNS
Server will

    1)    If the entry is in it zone or is only a locally qualified address,
the DNS server will use its default ROOT List,

    1a)    if its not of the zone, the DNS server will look to see if it has
this zone listed and if so then it will submit the query using that
specified ROOT List.

    1b) if it doesnt have the appropriate ROOT List it sends an LDAP Query
to the ZONE Bridge Lookup Server operated in my  proposal by ICANN as the
top end of the ICANN Registrars Infrastructure...

    2)    The LDAP server downloads the correct master server list and with
that new ROOT List we jump to #1a.

My take here is that RZP is (or could/should be) ICANN's secret weapon and
that if ICANN had any brains it would sieze on this as its method of
bringing all the various politicos together as the directory service for all
the Zones. This would permanently justify their existence. I bet there is
even UN Funding for this somewhere.

The world needs an ICANN to manage their zones and ports but beyond that -
my feeling is that ICANN's vision of a single globally distributed network
is soiled something aweful. It already doesnt pass the sniff test and that
is bad enough.

The concept also creates two classes of domain names really - The Locally
Qualified - that is what we know today as a FQDN, and that of a globally
qualified domain name.

GQDN URL's could be like:

http://[us1]www.jones.com

and something like ICANN itself could easily be:

http://[org]www.icann.org or just http://[org]ICANN which can make the world
much simplier.

This also would let us create the Trademark zone and so simple notations
like:

http://[tm]Coca-Cola

or

http://[us-corp]FordMotors and its big brother
http://[global-corp]FordMotors

Could easily be made to happen as well.

>
>     Doesn't this leave us with the current problem where politicians will
> take (are about to take) control of ccTLDs for political ends?  And (if I
> read your messages correctly) with ICANN incapable of preventing them from
> doing so.
>
>     Don't you think that a strong, technically capable organization, which
> is representative of the global user base, could have any influence on the
> global structure that you envision?

Oh yes, and it should too!

>Even if that organization is forced to
> represent the whole through national cells.

How about national congresses. This would work!

> Could this (should this) be our
> organization.  If not, what are we doing?

No Ron it is critical for the At Large voice to speak up. Dont get me wrong
but we are the powerbase here, not ICANN. The myth of ICANN is that it
represents the people. ICANN does not spend money per se, we do in the
economy, and so it is really we that have the powerbase. Further proof of
this is that ICANN does not at this time understand the power we have, or we
would control it.

Now the first thing ICANN will say to this is "just look at you" and my
response is  to that is to a large extent critical to ICANN's modus operandi
to keep us unorganized. My point being that if ICANN really represented the
Users of the Internet it would have organized this and the other WG's
officially and policed the lists for trolls. There also would have been some
statement of goals and deliverables to meet those goals and the milestones
to indicate our progress.  And it would have kicked-butt when those goals
were not met. Bluntly it would have namaged us rather than us haveing to
manage it.

What ICANN has shown us is that they have to a large extent practiced
policies and technological development that leads to them staying where they
are. And that they have not resolved the key issues facing us.

So where is any of this today?

>
> Ron
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
> To: "Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>; <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 9:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re:Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen
> anywhere
>
>
> > Ron
> > Because there is a need to create a single critical mass - But this
> critical
> > mass needs to not be afraid of its constituents as ICANN is of us
Internet
> > Users... That's why a global Internet is still at least 20 years away.
> >
> > As to ICANN and its processes - I can see any number of Countries that
do
> > not have the wherewithal to build their own roots so they wouldn't -
which
> > means they are stuck with ICANN. That is until DNS is morphed so that it

> can
> > support multiple zones simultaneously. The I assure you there will be
> Zones
> > popping up all over.
> >
> > Also to make multiple roots work - we would need an Inter-Root
> nomenclature
> > system and a Root to Root query/switching system. All of this is easily
> > doable though by the creation of a Root Zone Management Protocol. That
> lives
> > atop DNS (creates Locally and Globally Qualified Domain Names - that is
> > Domain Names with and without Zone Names). The question is - who wants
to
> > build such a toy. Once there is this technical capability there will be
no
> > possible suppression of multiple roots.
> >
> > What cracks me up is that so many in this group still seem to think that
> > ICANN actually controls the Internet. Its the Network Operators that
> control
> > the Internet today and no one else.
> >
> > When did ICANN ever make a decision of what was an was not to be routed?
> Or
> > what peering deals were in place, or aggregate back-hauling deals etc
etc
> > etc. The point is that the Carriers today are the Internet and until
ICANN
> > wrestles them into submission they will just be the DNS root management.
> >
> > Once multiple root capabilities are created, they wont be that anymore
> > either.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>
> > To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 1:43 PM
> > Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Re:Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen
> anywhere
> >
> >
> > Good afternoon, Todd:
> >
> >     I thank you for your clear reasoning that South Africa (and any
other
> > country or enterprise, or individual for that matter) does not need to
> defer
> > to ICANN (or, I guess) any other entity in order to conduct fast,
> > transparent business over the Internet, using any naming convention that
> > they choose.
> >
> >     Since you are convinced that this is the case, why are we forming an
> > organization to represent global user interests in dealings with ICANN
and
> > other entities?
> >
> >     If it is simply because there is a need for a co-coordinating body,
> and
> > that the incumbent organization (ICANN) is not sufficiently
> representative,
> > then aren't you really discussing one technical aspect of a greater
> problem?
> > One that makes today's news just as significant and our work just as
> > important.
> >
> > Ron Sherwood
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
> > To: "Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>;
<atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 4:01 PM
> > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere
> >
> >
> > > Ron I would put it to the group that it is this commentary that seeks
to
> > > "inhibit" the growth of the Internet and not the South African's. What
> the
> > > SA regime is tired of is putting up with having to be dot ZA. ICANN
has
> > > basically shat all over the third world and still refuses to put in
> place
> > a
> > > reasonable IP representation system or to address the fact that they
are
> > not
> > > the only game in town.
> > >
> > > Look - its simple math - you do it yourself and then tell us how it
adds
> > > up:"
> > >
> > >     Q1    Who is responsible for what protocols are routed on the
> > Internet?
> > > ICANN? - Wrong the Network Operators.
> > >
> > >     Q2    If the Government of SA wants to setup its own ROOT ZONE and
> > offer
> > > to its people the entirety of its OWN dot COM, NET, or ORG, who is
going
> > to
> > > stop them? ICANN? WorldNet? So who then? --- The only answer here is
> that
> > > they would need to come up with a way to bridge between Root Zones.
> > >
> > >     Q3    If the SA IT Managers say to the manufacturers that they
> needed
> > a
> > > notation form/ solution for expanding DNS such that it can represent
> > > multiple root zones simultaneously, they would respond "OK" and then
> > > implement this? So the question is "Does anyone care if the IETF picks
> it
> > up
> > > at that point?", I think that the answer is no.
> > >
> > > After all The PSO's are to be split off of ICANN as part of the
> reforming
> > of
> > > it anyway. My take is that if that is the case, then there is Study
> Group
> > #2
> > > of the ITU and they would love to handle this matter of adding Root
> Zones
> > > and a protocol to manage it to DNS, I already checked.
> > >
> > >     Q4    Perhaps then if ICANN cant get its act together to deal with
> the
> > > limited Marque Types that work on the Internet, and to increase the
> > > available domains, then what do we need them for anyway? Its groups
like
> > > NANOG where the rubber of operating the Internet meets the road.
> > >
> > > So add them up - these are simple questions - and they all point to
the
> > same
> > > place. That this Internet is not run by the ICANN, despite what anyone
> > would
> > > have you believe, and that we need to implement individual root zones
> and
> > a
> > > notation form to get us back and forth between them.
> > >
> > > Todd Glassey
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>
> > > To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 12:14 PM
> > > Subject: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear fellow at-largers:
> > >
> > >     Today's report on the political battle over .za is copied below.
> > >
> > >     The claim that the majority of South Africans do not have access
to
> > the
> > > Internet, has nothing whatsoever to do with Domain Name management.
It
> is
> > > simply political deception used to persuade the ignorant to accept
> > > nationalization of that management.
> > >
> > >     This could happen anywhere.  The first time that it does, the rot
> will
> > > have started.  The only way to keep the Internet from becoming another
> > > political franchise, subject to embargo and national exploitation is
for
> > it
> > > to be controlled by a strong, organized, global, user based entity
that
> > > crosses all political and national boundaries.  This should be our
> wake-up
> > > call and should define our mandate.
> > >
> > > Ron Sherwood
> > >
> > > S. Africa plans to control Net name
> > > Controversy stirs over who will control '.za'
> > > June 7, 2002 Posted: 10:39 AM EDT (1439 GMT)
> > >
> > >
> > > June 7, 2002 Posted: 10:39 AM EDT (1439 GMT)
> > >
> > >
> > > CAPE TOWN, South Africa (Reuters) -- South Africa's parliament gave
> > initial
> > > approval on Friday to a law designed to expand access to the Internet,
> but
> > > which critics say could force the network to shut down in the country.
> > >
> > > The Electronic Communication and Transactions Bill adopted by the
> National
> > > Assembly gives legal status to Internet communications, contracts and
> > > trades.
> > >
> > > But it also proposes to take over the administration of South African
> > > Internet domains, identified by the ".za" suffix in addresses, without
> > > seeking the approval of the international authority that administers
the
> > > Internet roadmap.
> > >
> > > Nkenke Kekana, chairman of the parliamentary committee that approved
the
> > > draft, told legislators the management of the Internet could not be
left
> > to
> > > individuals.
> > >
> > > "Change is imperative...We need a stable, representative and
democratic
> > > model of domain naming and allocation in our region," he said.
> > >
> > > Opposition legislator Dene Smuts accused the government of
nationalizing
> > the
> > > administration of the .za suffix that identifies all South Africa Web
> > sites
> > > and addresses, saying the government was obsessed with "empire
building
> > and
> > > control."
> > >
> > > Referring to warnings from Internet administrators that violation of
> > > international conventions on domain name management could see the
South
> > > African section of the network shutdown, she told parliament:
> > >
> > > "This bill fails to avert the danger that we will lose South Africa's
> > major
> > > connection to the Internet itself...This net grab simply nationalizes
> > domain
> > > name administration," she said before voting against it.
> > >
> > > Domain names -- the ".com" and ".uk" type suffixes of addresses and
Web
> > > sites -- are the foundation of Internet navigation. They have been
> subject
> > > to fierce competition with early users trying to claim addresses and
> > domains
> > > that might become valuable.
> > >
> > > Communications Minister Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri said the Bill would
allow
> > the
> > > drafting of regulations to ensure that more and more South Africans
> would
> > be
> > > able to access the Internet.
> > >
> > > "For e-commerce to make an impact on sustainable economic growth, all
> > South
> > > Africans should become active participants in electronic communication
> and
> > > transactions," she said.
> > >
> > > Equal access
> > > Matsepe-Casaburri dismissed criticism of the proposed domain-name
> > takeover,
> > > telling parliament: "The sometimes hysterical and irrational debate on
> the
> > > issue of the domain name...is indicative of mindsets that have not yet
> > come
> > > to terms with the democratic government in existence today."
> > >
> > > The .za domain name is administered under a mandate from the
> international
> > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) by local
> > > Internet pioneer Mike Lawrie.
> > >
> > > Lawrie told Reuters earlier this week he was keen to be rid of the
> domain
> > > name administration he has handled without pay for a decade, but
> insisted
> > it
> > > had to be done under ICANN rules.
> > >
> > > He said a law making his administration illegal would conflict with
> ICANN
> > > rules requiring him and the Internet community of South Africa to
> approve
> > > redelegation of the role.
> > >
> > > "If it becomes illegal for me to do the job under South African law
and
> if
> > I
> > > am not authorized by ICANN to hand over the administration, the .za
> domain
> > > will have to shut down until the issue is cleared up," he said in an
> > > interview.
> > >
> > > Lawrie oversees a series of computer files that are central to the
South
> > > African Internet roadmap and would have to hand these to any future
> > > administrator. Without them, the South African network would have to
be
> > > rebuilt from scratch.
> > >
> > > The bill proposes that Matsepe-Casaburri should appoint a panel to
> choose
> > a
> > > board for a new non-profit company that will take over the so-called
> > > "namespace administration."
> > >
> > > It does not provide for approval by ICANN, acknowledged around the
world
> > as
> > > the global administrator of domain names.
> > >
> > > The independent Media Africa group estimates around 2.4 million of
South
> > > Africa's 44 million people had access to the Internet by the end of
> 2000,
> > > leaving most of the black majority out of the network.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de