[governance] [discuss] [bestbits] The decentralization of the DNS system

[McTim]

There was no acrimony, just a simple statement of fact.  I trust PIR
to administer .ngo, I do not trust you to do so.

More inline:

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
> Thanks McTim. I regret you feel obliged to put some acrimony in this last
> reply. No need. The "I don't trust you" remark is certainly of no help in
> any open debate. so keeping head cool, I will keep the debate cool as well.
> See in-lines.
>
>
> Le 22 juin 2015 à 12:32, McTim a écrit :
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
> Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your additional comments McTim.
>
>
> 1_
>
> May I challenge the idea that hierarchy would come without a ruling party at
>
> the top.
>
>
>
> You certainly may challenge, but as an example in IG which disproves
> your theory is Internet number resource distribution.
>
>
> I am not building any theory here. I am mostly deconstructing a narrative
> and giving way to alternative.
>
> No one will be naive enough not to understand that the Internet root zone
> policy book belongs to hierarchs, whether you look at ICANN, IANA, IETF...
> This is a smart ruling system, still a ruling system.

What you said was:


"May I challenge the idea that hierarchy would come without a ruling
party at the top."


And I gave an example where there is no "ruling party at the top".


>
> Thinking about the concrete meaning of the "global addressing community" it
> sounds like a nice idea, it might not survive the pragmatic examination of
> its reality. We would love to learn more about what it is exactly and how
> this global community interacts, expresses wishes or comes to decision.

https://www.nro.net/policies/getting-internet-number-resources

https://www.arin.net/knowledge/resourceguide.pdf

https://www.iana.org/numbers

These pages should get you started.

>
>
>
> there is a hierarchy (IANA is the "root" so to speak), yet IANA
> distributes according to policies devised not by itself, but by the
> global addressing community.   ICANN does not "rule" IANA actions in
> this area.
>
>
> ICANN hosts IANA until it will hold it in a few months of time, once the
> auto-transition is completed.


The numbers community will still devise policies for global
addressing, it will not be done by ICANN post-transition.

>
>
>
>
>
> ( in a
>
> public policy sense) and has to be considered as "controlling" the ability
>
<snip>
>
>
> alt roots have been around for a long time, they just haven't gained
> traction.
>
>
> Agree with that. Happy that you agree with me as well (alternative to ICANN
> exists). But then why is it so that only one is leading the party? You
> should go beyond that well-known fact and help anyone to reflect upon the
> absence of fair competition, or true public policy making.

We will agree to disagree about what I should do.

>
> Do you have specifics info about the fact that PIR has been given the .ngo
> new gTLD? We all know that PIR is putting money into ISOC, and into ICANN.
> Fair?

PIR is a wholly owned entity of ISOC.


yes, it fair.  here is your specific evidence:

C:\dig>dig ngo

; <<>> DiG 9.3.2 <<>> ngo
;; global options:  printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 1493
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;ngo.                           IN      A

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
ngo.                    899     IN      SOA     a0.nic.ngo. noc.afilias-nst.in
. 1000002702 10800 3600 2764800 900

;; Query time: 1278 msec
;; SERVER: 8.8.8.8#53(8.8.8.8)
;; WHEN: Mon Jun 22 07:52:23 2015
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 84


<snip>

>
>
> You speak of
>
> coherence. Indeed coherence is a technical necessity. Having several root
>
> zone and several root zone management has to be understood in a very
>
> pragmatic fashion. Why is Open Root info coherent with the ICANN root zone?
>
> Easy answer. Open Root does as Google does it. It copies it every xx seconds
>
> to stay coherent. Then, tell us what forbids ICANN to copy the Open root
>
> data? Nothing. I repeat: nothing. Only the idea that having several root
>
> zone would jeopardize the single ruling party who obtained its holy
>
> authority from divine and natural law.


It jeopardizes coherence.  If the IANA included Open Root data in the
zone file, then there would be two sets of nameservers for .ngo
(amongst others).




We are talking of files with of small
>
> size in terms of octet, and once you are correctly directed thanks to a root
>
> zone manager, you navigate safely. Consistency or coherence comes when all
>
> the players accept to inform or be informed of what any root zone offers.

How would consistency or coherence be maintained with the .ngo
example?  If there were 2 or more .ngo registries, how would a
resolver choose which set of nameservers were authoritative for this
TLD?


>
>
>
> right, so the DNS is simply a convenient layer of misdirection, which
> negates your argument above re: "controlling who sees content.
>
>
> McTim, don't you have any better trick to escape my point.



It is common sense, not a "trick".

 Being able to
> "see", "find", "access" is critical in any communication system. I don't
> think we need to ask everyone to read the "The Theory of Communicative
> Action" to understand why the DNS is essential, and core to the current
> asymmetry in the public space.


We must agree to disagree once again.

>
>
>
>
>
> It can only be blind to it. The game is simply to direct a visitor, calling
>
> on a domain name, directly, or through redirection, to reach a file located
>
> at an IP address or a set of IP addresses able to locate the requested
>
> files.
>
>
> 3_
>
> The  idea of a broken Internet is fun, but simplistic and again false. But
>
> as Open root offers new TLDs with a very good bargain, we haven't seen the
>
> Internet being broken. It would be known if it was so.  Indeed it will
>
> simply not do that, whether it operates a single new TLD  or  a thousand
>
> TLDs. It will enlarge the Internet by adding more TLDs to the web. And no
>
> one would get lost.
>
>
> Exc  ept in the case offered whereby you are the Registry for .ngo,
> and so is PIR.  Once you offer a name that is also in the PIR
> zonefile, but has a different IP address, then coherence is "lost".
>
>
> No coherence is lost, as soon as you understand that technically speaking
> several root zone managements can allow to give you "results" as Google is
> giving you "results" when searching for something (and not just one result).
> Then you pick up the website that you want to explore. There are other
> options to maintain the reply consistent with the result of the research.
> There is no danger to coherence, as soon as you relax a bit about letting
> things getting back to the original conception of the root zone (before the
> 1998 power grab by USG and ICANN).


The original conception was that the DNS would be coherent.  Perhaps
we have a different definition of that word.  I don't think it means
what you think it means.

I have worked for 2 rootserver operators, so I think I have a fairly
good grasp of the DNS as originally envisioned.  Perhaps you should
read RFCs 1034 and 1035.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- 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