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

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

* Roeland Meyer wrote:
> From: Lutz Donnerhacke [mailto:lutz@iks-jena.de]
>> Wrong conclusion. If there is no solution, it's worth asking for the
>> reasons. And they are clearly marked since years: Abuse of a
>> hierarchical system by applying multiple projections causing ambiguity.
>> 
>> There are two ways out:
>>   - drop the uniqueness constraint or
>>   - drop the all projections.
>> 
>> The latter one is not arguable, due to the implication: "You should not
>> name."
>
>Agreed, dropping all the projecting is not feasible. It is the technology
>that must adapt and comply.

Fine, let's avoid this way.

>> The first one is currently under discussion: It comes out that dropping
>> this constraint converts the DNS into a search engine. But this
>> consequence was not preferred, too.
>
>This is only abhored by the ignorant. It turns out that having searchable
>root zone servers may not be such a bad idea.

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.

>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.

>The search algorithms would be under technology control, rather than
>political control.

Techies wet dreams.

>Note that, this idea was discussed back when DNS was first designed. Many
>were of the opinion (self included) that it would be a good phase 2
>implementation feature. The problem is that we have too many that have
>grown a vested interest in maintaining the phase 1 limitations. DNS needs
>to evolve to the next level and searchable roots is a key feature there.

Known. Search for HDDB and my name to find such a proposal. :-(

>FYI, Marc and I both operate our own root zone servers.

Everybody on this list do so. It does not qualify here.

>> Of course, there is a third way: Give the monopoly of the hierarchical
>> system to the lawers. This is the way we are all going.
>
>I disagree that this is the inevitable direction.

Ack, but this is still the way we are all going.

>I also disagree that this is truely a third alternative.

It's reality.

>It is actually a variation on the first one, where we stop projecting.

No. The third alternative does select one projection over all others. But
the current movement prefers a non working one grounded on contradicting laws.

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