Competition ? Re: [governance] is icann ...

[jefsey]

Dear Mc,

At 07:28 22/09/2009, McTim wrote:
>it opens a can of worms in terms of DNS load.  Avri is correct, it
>needs much research and IETF work.

Yes. Today, I think the only IETF related class and presentation 
research effort is carried on the iucg at ietf.org mailing list. The 
IUCG is an internet lead user (@large) effort that strives to help 
people _using_ the internet better, while more generaly the IETF 
mission is to make the internet _work_ better. This research is 
carried for years (along ICP-3 suggestions). It is at a  cross road 
because IUCG said that we will make our interplus answer 100% 
compatible with existing IETF propositions. The most important IETF 
move in that area is IDNA. The recommendation of IETF was, I think, 
reasonably documented in a mail Vint Cerf sent to me, to push in that 
direction in a reasonable way.

The problems are that this IUCG @large effort is opposed by the ALAC, 
also that classes and presentations are very similar to the security 
issue: they are architecturally permitted to create chaos yet nothing 
protects from them except ignoring them. So, addressing them demands 
either a clean sheet new internet internal architecture and 
governance, or a better understanding of the network model and 
intergovernance, the addition of new layers, and a ambiant mechanism 
to protect ourselves from real chaos.

On the IETF side, this is what the WG/IDNABIS is about. IDNs would 
have been addressed by the IGF (not ICANN as too limited, or ITU as a 
patch) in minutes should the Internet presentation layer and classes 
being more actively understood and protected.

On the IUCG side, this is what the Internet PLUS (plugged layers user 
system) is also about. At this time the two systems (IDNA and 
IDNAPLUS) are not technically very far apart (only a few words). Yet 
they still seem conceptually separated because the engineers of the 
IETF, who want to support every user script still do not want to 
support them the way the people use them. Because the IETF English is 
for 25 years case insensitive, the world should stop using case 
sensitive scripts. Happily this is not technically difficult to 
address and everything has been well prepared by the WG/IDNABIS 
document set after WG/LC review (the IUCG IDNA working site is 
http://wikidna.org).

>Yesterdays report RSSAC tells us
>that we must go slow on adding to the root complexity and size, as
>implementing v6, DNSSEC, iDNs and new TLDs have a multiplicative
>effect on the rootzone and DNS traffic.

Do not forget Web.2.0. The real issue is that the Internet is still 
supported by a real root and a pseudo single root server system. The 
emerging reality is a virtual root and a distributed heterarchic 
server support. ICANN has called for years for this to be community 
explored and tested (ICP-3). IETF has declined the invitation. We did 
it for two years and build from this experimentation.

>the IETF builds the protocols and the IANA assigns the protocols,
>including DNS classes. http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters,
>so I'm not getting where you think the "outside of ICANN" competition
>comes in to play.

The outside of ICANN world is the users' world. Us. None of us is 
bound to ICANN except by the feeling of uninformed people that ICANN 
has something to do with the fact that the Internet works. The real 
service of ICANN is to hide where the real problem is. The problem is 
that we (users) will blow ICANN out if we want to reasonably protect 
our own netship system. Because the solution is not DNSSEC, the 
solution is for us to run our own fool proof, secure, and fast DNS 
solution including our own root, based upon our selected TLD set, on 
non recursive servers.

>In any case, why are you going to the ITU for funding/audience?  If
>you want to change a DNS standard, the IETF is the place to work.
>There is a DNSextensions WG.

This is not the proper WG. The job is an IAB job if carried through 
network architecture and engineering. It is an IRTF job to prepare 
the IAB guidance. It aslo is a userside job with immediate user 
protection as a target. Francis went to the ITU because they are the 
single most concerned body. I created the IUCG with the help of 
several IETF leaders, once they identified that I would have to go 
with the ITU if they continued to ignore lead users, as the ICANN still does.

One cannot rebuild the entire Internet governance alone, but I am 
afraid that since ICANN also blocks the enhanced cooperation 
mechanism, I will still need to re-act ATLARGE (http://atlarge.org) 
to get the IUCG the end user backing that it needs for inputs and testing.

>It seems that some want to keep alive the ITU vs. ICANN struggle that
>Meryem asked about the other day.

This is not so much an ITU vs. ICANN struggle, but an ICANN dominance 
attempt where it should be our common secretariat. The first lesson I 
draught from IUCG is that no one will really understand the way the 
Internet works as long as we talk of "users". The world is 
distributed and made of "masters" of which the system is technically 
an internet "client". This is what the WSIS' demand about a people's 
centric vision means. Server centric and network centric schemes do 
not fullt fit. Providers are to be server centric and ISP are to be 
network centric. We are master centric. This is something we know 
from Einstein. This is also the kind of tussle that Dave Clark 
(founder of IETF and GENI) recently discussed as a new key reality of 
the Internet architecture.

Best.
jfc


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance