Re: Theology [Was Re: [icann-eu] Re: [ICANN-EU] ccTLDs to ask forBoD seats?]

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

I'm afraid that I too read RFC 2826 as a Kierkegaardian leap of faith.  
It seems to me to have a leap that your explanation makes very plain.
(see below)

On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> At 17:29 29/11/2000 -0500, t byfield wrote:
> >the IAB's RFC 2826 <http://rfc2826.x42.com/> is an excellent
> >example of why i make the analogy to theology:
> >
> >      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 sup-
> >      ported by a set of coordinated root servers administered
> >      by a unique naming authority.
> >
> >this is a confession of faith, not an RFC. confessions of faith
> >are fine; so are RFCs. but they're not the same thing.
> 
> I don't see the faith involved here; the IAB document says how the DNS 
> works, and not much more.
> 
> The term "the public DNS" is the important operator: if you have two roots, 
> you no longer have a single public DNS.

This is a step that has seems weird to me; and to explain it you have had
to put an adjective in front of "public DNS" (you put "single").  This
need arises because ere are of course multiple existing public DNSs.  
There's just one that is much more commonly used than the others (oddly,
it isn't actually 'bigger' or 'better' since some others are a superset of
it). I don't deny that there is a value to a single DNS; the problem is
that we now see the costs too and they are non-trivial.

> Today, the "rogue" roots are not the public DNS; they are something else.
> 

That is not so in any sense of the word 'public' I'm familiar with --
'popular' yes, but all are equally open to the public.  Indeed, the ICANN
root is in some sense less 'public' - being under the control of a highly
arbitrary private California corporation -- than some of the less
organized, more consensus-based, so-called alternate roots.

> If a large group of ccTLDs and ICANN were truly to fall out with each 
> other, there would no longer be a reasonable choice for applying the term 
> "the public DNS", and the comparison to the Antipope situation is indeed 
> not unreasonable.
> 

Again, you confuse 'public' with 'legacy' or 'common' or 'popular'.

> Still, the fact is that the "pope" and the "antipope" each whould have to 
> maintain one root, supported by a set of coordinated root servers 
> administered by an unique naming authority.
> 
> The fight would be over who owned the term "the public DNS" for their root.
> And the users would lose.
> 

The fact remains that the RFC doesn't set a technical standard.  It
doesn't tell me how to build or code anything.  It preaches, and makes a
key leap of logic not justified by actual facts.

Politicizing the RFC's in this manner did not bring credit to the IAB, and
I predict that when we look back on this in, say, 20 years there will be
consensus that it was an error.  Hardly the most serious error in history,
but error none the less.

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's warm here.<--