techno-politics was Re: [governance] Bloomberg - The Overzealous

[David Conrad]

Karl,

On Jan 21, 2013, at 12:39 AM, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:
> On 01/20/2013 10:48 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>> In order to maintain a coherent (that is, non-conflicting) namespace,
>> the DNS protocol itself requires a single root.  Really.
> 
> Yes, and yet even with that "yes" it does not matter.  

_Of course_ it matters. The whole point of a single root is to ensure a consistent namespace.

> Consistency means that those name spaces give the same answers to the
> same queries, at least with respect to queries that are based on TLDs
> that are found in both of the roots being compared.

You are suggesting that existence of a name in one name space and lack of the same name in another namespace is consistent. This is obviously and blatantly wrong.

> Fortunately DNS/DNSSEC is not unsafe in the presence of competing roots.

It is unsafe (regardless of the use of DNSSEC) in the sense that if the namespaces differs between roots, you have broken namespace consistency.  An obvious example:

In my root, I point ".APPLE" to a small company in Cupertino.
In your root, you point ".APPLE" to a consortium of round fruit growers.
Someone's grandmother in the touring the wilds of Tajikistan by motorbike is trying to send a snapshot to her grandson in California at tim at mail.apple using her cellphone. 

Where does her snapshot go?

As far as I can tell, you are arguing that the fact that Tim's grandmother cannot know where her snapshot will go is a good thing (!) because it will encourage you and I to work together to ensure that .APPLE points to the same place.  How is that going to work exactly?  I suppose it'll be fine from my perspective if you break your contract with the round fruit growers because I'm not going to break my contract with the small company in Cupertino and I'm certainly not going to give you any of the money they gave me.

You also are ignoring the fact that namespaces change over time. I note you didn't bother responding to my question:

>> And what happens when the ICANN new gTLD program after a year or two allocates the "boutique" TLD string to a different entity than the one that runs the TLD "at the edge"? 


I also note you didn't bother responding to my related question regarding ORSN:

>> And you believe it appropriate that the fact that the ISO-3166 Maintenance Agency, you know, the UN agency the defines what the 2 letter code points actually are, had explicitly stated "Code element deleted from ISO 3166-1; stop using ASAP" should be completely irrelevant?
>> 
>> And what would happen in the DNS if sometime after SU was removed from ISO-3166 when ISO-3166/MA _reallocated_ the code point like what happened with CS? In your world, should IANA refuse to delegate the new SU?  Should IANA revoke SU from the folks who held the ISO-3166/MA deleted code point and then give it to the new delegatee?

I am honestly curious about your responses.

Regards,
-drc


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t