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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Christian, Andy and all,

  I for one am glad you pointed the FTP reference out in your comments
here.  (More directly below your comments)

Christian.Ahlert@sowi.uni-giessen.de wrote:

> 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.

  These comments in the FTP/URL you listed are not proven in fact
are currently being proven to be NOT TRUE as I type this, but only
on a small scale.  Some have sense argued (Sense this RFC was
created) that Shared Root/Floating Root structures will work but not
scale.  So they are already back peddling from the date of this
reference.  But let me digress a little more for purposes of edification
and understanding.

  Multiple Root/Shared Root /Floating Root structures has been proven
to also scale.  In 1995 I sent to Jon Postal our test data on our
"Shared Root" structure with a significant amount of test data that
showed clearly a Multiple Root structure can work well.  Jon Postel
was not surprised but was concerned how this could impact the
Internet as it was than and in the foreseeable future from a political
point of view and ask me personally to keep it in confidence
for the time being.  I did so reluctantly our of respect for Jon.

  How does all this relate to this thread?

  Well after Jon's death I made Esther aware of this information.
She didn't have a clue as to what I was talking about.  Hence my
earlier comment regarding Esther and Andy's conversation with
here in his meeting report which is this thread.  You just can't
put much confidence in ANYTHING Esther says.

>
>
> 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.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208