RE: [ICANN-EU] meeting esther dyson - a very short report

[Christian.Ahlert@sowi.uni-giessen.de]

Hi All,

I certainly agree that from a political point of view a decentralized 
root-server-system would reduce the risk of abusive control by any 
one entity. However, I am not sure if it is technical feasible.

Have a look at: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2826.txt

There it is specified: 

To remain a global network, the Internet requires the existence of a
   globally unique public name space.  The DNS name space is a
   hierarchical name space derived from a single, globally unique 
root.
   This is a technical constraint inherent in the design of the DNS.
   Therefore it is not technically feasible for there to be more than
   one root in the public DNS.  That one root must be supported by a 
set
   of coordinated root servers administered by a unique naming
   authority.

   Put simply, deploying multiple public DNS roots would raise a very
   strong possibility that users of different ISPs who click on the same
   link on a web page could end up at different destinations, against
   the will of the web page designers.


My question to all the techies on this list: Is this a mere justification 
of the current structure ( a claim to centralized power), or what?

Best
CH 



Date sent:      	Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:52:34 +0200 (CEST)
From:           	Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>
To:             	"McMeikan, Andrew" <andrew.mcmeikan@mitswa.com.au>
Copies to:      	"'icann-europe@fitug.de'" <icann-europe@fitug.de>, csif-l@jca.apc.org,
       	"'Andy Mueller-Maguhn'" <andy@ccc.de>
Subject:        	RE: [ICANN-EU] meeting esther dyson - a very short report

On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, McMeikan, Andrew wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> A very informative report and one that should give good cause for some
> serious thinking.
> 
> In my mind if the system is going to change to a truly de-centralized one
> then some infrastructure needs to be in place to achieve this.  That means
> something that can not be shutdown or controlled by any government
> anywhere, with all the power for changes in a distributed web of trust,
> outside of legislation, tm-mark laws or UDRP action.

That would be heaven. Basically it needs different roots. Right now
there is a single point-of-failure / attack.
 
> Does anyone have good reason why a linkage of private, corporate and
> organizational networks could not be managed in this way?

This would work if some very big players would go for it. Perhaps all
the big ones are too much interrelated with the IP/TM interest to want
it, or be able to do it.

> If corporate wishes to abide by arbitrary rulings (they may well since
> they have the lawyers) they can stick with the existing method.
> 
> But the free exchange of network addressing in a distributed manner (by
> perhaps a freenet descendant) is something I think should be pursued and
> would result in a truly robust and bottom up run internetwork.

Freenet, yes. I got lost shortly before 0.3 came out. It *never*
worked for days, weeks (I may be exaggerating, just for once). Must
try it again soon. Still a long way to go. 

> I hope that Andy can make enough noise in this direction that the system
> opens up a bit so that there will be one addressing scheme that serves all
> instead of alternate DNS roots springing up.

ICANN may now have its last chance. If they mess up the new gTLDs
alternate roots may have an opportunity. (They are already there of
course.) I am less and less worried about 'splits'. It will make DNS
less hierarchical, if successfull. And less vulnerable. Which brings
us back to the top of your message.

Successfull would mean: 20% users within 6 months. 

-- 
Marc Schneiders

"In re tam iusta nulla est deliberatio."
(Acta SS. Mart. Scillitanorum [AD 202]) 



Christian_Ahlert@harvard.edu              recent writings at:

Giessener Pforte 39                       http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/icann
35440 Linden                              http://www.telepolis.de
Germany
Mobile: 0049 +171 581 3662

Different versions of cyberspace support different kinds of dreams. We choose wisely, or not.