Re: [icann-europe] European RootServer System

[Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, at 12:05 [=GMT-0100], Andy Duff wrote:

> I think the point Marc was making was to try and establish _why_ everyone
> keeps on saying that New.net is "destabilising the Internet". 

Actually I was asking who it were that profited _from_
destabilising. The original poster never answered. I don't see anyone
myself that would qualify. The example mentioned is a company that
profits (if it makes a profit) while the result of their business
model is a less stable namespace. Who is to blame for this destability
is a totally different matter. As you point out:

[...]

> I suggest the best option is to ignore New.net right now and concentrate on
> trying to fix a messy system of DNS governance which has resulted in
> companies like New.net coming into existence to satisfy a perceived market
> demand. 

[...]

> To answer that question requires a proper analysis of whether a European
> Root Server system would add any value to the (European) users of the
> Internet. Here there are really two issues. One is a security issue (i.e.
> will it enhance the reliability and stability of the Internet for European
> Users) and the other is a question of semantic "control" over the Internet's
> naming system (which many others feel is too much embedded within ICANN and
> USG control of the legacy root at the moment). Any thoughts on these two
> issues? 

I would think any European or non-American root server set that really
wants to address the namespace issues should start with a pre-ICANN
root, as far as the included TLDs are concerned. So without the 7 new
TLDs (biz, info, museum etc) and without ps and eu...

> I know very little on the first, and think the second is important,
> but way bigger (and smaller) than just the European context. Bigger as in
> Asia-pacific and the issue of ML domain names in completely different
> character sets, and smaller in that there are obviously numerous language
> communities based in Europe which might have different semantic requirements
> and desires in terms of the DNS (and more specifically TLDs).

Lots of European languages also need ML domains (or IDN as I think we
are now supposed to call them) to represent their names: Scandinavian
languages, French, German, Spanish, Portugese, Greek, Dutch. And I am
sure there are more

[...]

> 4. As the userbase of the Internet becomes more global in make-up, the
> pressures of national interest become greater, and the idealised concept of
> a privatised policy making function for the DNS based in California becomes
> less realistic. The nascent attempts at creating different root systems are
> proof enough of this already.
> 
> In light of these points, I do think it is pertinent and sensible to at
> least explore this issue, not because multiple technical roots are
> necessarily desirable, but because they may (particularly in the long term)
> be the most pragmatic and secure way of ensuring interoperability of naming
> systems.  

This sounds like newspeak to me.

> I know that is the perspective of the ITU which is concerned with
> the pragmatic operation of technical systems within the real world
> constraints of national interests.

I know very little of the efficiency and speed of the ITU. Do you
think we will ever see, e.g., a new gTLD if the ITU takes over?


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