[governance] Comments related to the WGIG report

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I have a slightly different concern about multiple namespaces.  I  
think that the push for these namespaces is about to boil over, and  
despite the technical problems and perhaps the inadvisability of such  
a move, it is going to happen sooner or later.

So, given that eventuality, I wonder whether it is time to start work  
on the solutions that would allow continuing Internet connectivity.    
We can advise as much as we want against the creation of multiple  
name spaces, but such a policy cannot be enforced.  Should  the  
policy CS recommends be one of refusal to accept the possibility or  
should the policy recommendation be one of preparation for the probable?

Or is this an area we should avoid for the time being while focusing  
on the more pressing needs of developing countries?

a.

On 10 aug 2005, at 16.43, Geoff Huston wrote:

> At 09:39 PM 10/08/2005, McTim wrote:
>
>> Hi again,
>>
>> On 8/9/05, Robert Guerra <rguerra at lists.privaterra.org> wrote:
>> > Carlos:
>> >
>> > A more decentralized & distributed DNS system that doesn't get us
>> > into multiple name-spaces and is more secure than the current  
>> regime
>> > would be ideal - but is it possible? if so, how would the  
>> transition
>> > occur?
>>
>> I think you want too much.
>>
>> The DNS is distributed by it's very nature.  It is also hierarchical
>> in architecture, this can't be decentralised.
>>
>
>
> This has been a much travelled road. Once you have multiple name  
> spaces and the various users of these name spaces want to  
> communicate across the namespace boundaries then you need to refer  
> to yet another namespace that identifies each name space and  
> associates with it some referential  pointer to the method of  
> resolution for that space. In that case I can send you a  
> referential pointer within my namespace and the identity of my  
> namespace  which you you could then couple with this 'root'  
> namespace list to resolve the  reference. The striking similarity  
> of this informal description to the root zone of the DNS should, in  
> theory, not be a surprise. But I suspect that the school of  
> namespace social commentary that goes along the lines of :
> Emacs!
>
> would still be in strong denial over such claims of implicit  
> structure and associated constraint in the use of identity realms  
> in communications systems.
>
> Regards,
>
>     Geoff Huston
>
>
>
> <19d855.jpg>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance