[bestbits] [discuss] Why?

[JFC Morfin]

At 19:46 20/05/2015, willi uebelherr wrote:
>As a general observation, your enthusiasm for wordplay, neologisms 
>and new inventive acronyms  (MULTICANN, BUG, MYCANN-Plugs-in, is 
>sometimes witty, sometimes entertaining, sometimes clever, and 
>usually confusing and obuscatory and not helpful to allowing others 
>to understand your argument.

David,
I am travelling right now with reduced access to my mails.

I am afraid I have no particular enthusiasm in neologisms. I only 
have the burden of a reality about which we are lied, lied again and 
always lied in order to make us believe:
* there only the single possible bugged ICANN architectural 
restricted use of the Catenet (catenet! cf. IEN 48 by Vint Cerf)
* along the only Vint Cerf/Bob Kahn TCP/IP technology 1974/1983 
design, engraved in the NSA compatible status-quo stone in1985 for 
the ARPANET catenet (as opposed to any innovation  - having to be 
permitted first by IAB and ICANN)
* in opposition with the second objective of IEN 48, by Vint Cerf, 
i.e. to mimick and join the way we (Tymnet and CCITT) were using and 
concatenating the international catenet since 1977.

We are most probably going to be confronted to a series of press 
stories about so-called "DNS bugs" (eg. the eNom registrar attack). 
This is in order to prepare the politically correct opinion to a DNS 
protection Act, i.e. establishing the US monopoly on the global 
namespace, through ICANN, in order to defeat hackers and protect the 
world from terrorists.

The true reason why is that aside an anglo-saxon I*Core affiinity 
group there is gowing demand for an IETF or LIBRE (free netware 
community) WG to address the architectural BUG in the relations 
between "Ledgers", (i.e. DNS CLASS + Numbering Scheme + IANA + 
Catenet uses documentation/referent network information managers).

This demand will either be addressed by
- an IESG/IAB WG Charter,
- by and IETF non-WG mailing list
- or by a LIBRE/WG.
Decision by the IETF affinity group.

This WG will have to document and experiment (respecting ICANN ICP-3 
restrictions which are good) how multistakeholderism applies to ICANN 
and its multiple information coopetitors in administering the network 
nebula. Otherwise it will be a naming governance by operational 
omnistakeholderism. It will work probably well but will forget TMs, 
the economy of the existing registries and the interests of the 
"ICANN so-called naming industry". This is why there is the MULTICANN need.

This is what the NTIA has asked ICANN to look at, i.e. how ICANN, 
ccTLDs, vanityTLDs, registrars, resellers, etc. will survive in a 
mid-term LIBRE led namespace with DN costing one or two bucks a 
piece, or free when delivered by States, Banks, NGOs/

The accelerating alternative will probably be the "MYCANN-Plugs-in". 
There are several Free Software, national, coporate solution 
variations. The simplest is obviously to manage oneself his/her own 
db.files under Bind, or use the Host file. Some more sophisticated 
solutions are the Chinese plug-in and ISP solutions, or other 
open-roots alternatives. Then (this is my main technical interest) 
there are the virtual netboxes and VGN (i.e. many formes of network 
overlayings). All this might be leading to confusion.

If you do not want to be confused, just read the RFCs. Do not read 
ICANN except ICP-3. Do not read IAB (look at who is the Chair) 
without checking:
- You will soon discover that the technology is designed to support 
billions of local root files and around 35.000 global root files.
- Consider how you will fix the problem, for yourself as a single 
lead user, of this single point of anykind of failure (technical, 
political, military, economilcal; etc. etc.) ICANN is, as a being 
unilaterally global BUG,
- once the (now) reduced trust in the NTIA is gone.


And tell us if you find any other solution than:
- MYCANN-plugs-in (I could use the NAT methaphor to qualify them) and then
- the advisable need to put some order through a MULTICANN RFC (I 
could continue the metaphor with the IPv6).
- return the lead to a sovereign power through the US located PTI 
(even if ICANN is re located in Switzerland) whihc will 
be  accountable to ... the FCC.

Back in 1977.
jfc