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

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: lutz@iks-jena.de [mailto:lutz@iks-jena.de]
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 8:10 AM
> 
> * Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > From: Lutz Donnerhacke [mailto:lutz@iks-jena.de]

> >> 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.

X.400 && X.500 ::= <yuck>

> >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.

> >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. :-(

How does this reconcile with your point above. It seems contradictory.

> >FYI, Marc and I both operate our own root zone servers.
> 
> Everybody on this list do so. It does not qualify here.

It was not a statement of qualification. Rather, one of clarification. I was
not aware that everyone else here ran their own root zones.

> >> 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.

... for now.

> >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.

Exactly, it is a specific selection from the first alternative. 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.

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