Re: [icann-europe] Recommended Reading: Brad Templeton on ICANN a

[lutz@iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)]

* Roeland Meyer wrote:
> From: lutz@iks-jena.de [mailto:lutz@iks-jena.de]
>> It's a really bad idea. There is already a working hirarchical but
>> searchable name service tool out and operating: X.500, the real one.
>
>X.400 && X.500 ::= <yuck>

As long as people see the implemetation as the principle, DNS and Microsoft
will stay very healthy. (Look at the quoting styles to see the point)

>> >It is the lawyers that are against this.
>> 
>> That's not the problem. But the majority of users and droids 
>> won't move. And this is the problem.
>
>They'll move alright. We just have to remove the fences.

Fences? Do you sit on a customers hotline sometimes? Even at last level you
have to deal with erronous or missing name server resolutions panicing
customers.

>> Known. Search for HDDB and my name to find such a proposal. :-(
>
>How does this reconcile with your point above. It seems contradictory.

Failing yourself is a necessary precondidion for opposing anything.

>> No. The third alternative does select one projection over all others.
>> But the current movement prefers a non working one grounded on
>> contradicting laws.
>
>Exactly, it is a specific selection from the first alternative.

No. My first alternative was to remove the external naming references
completely. This (third) one tries to limit the references to a very narrow
view. This is quite the opposite. The first DNS root zones tried to seperate
the mappings by TLDs (and failed to keep those distinctions in place,
causing today's trouble).

>A real third-alternative would meld the first two, or make the first two
>moot. A viable third-alternative is something that many of us are looking
>for. IMHO, it hasn't been found yet.

>From the mathematical point of view ther are only wet dreams.

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