Re: Thread 5: Defining the namespace

[Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>]

This whole thing is off track as far as I can see.

First, it has to work in and for the Internet, and this means it has
to use Internet Class Technology.  

I see no sign of its Internet Technology Presence here;-)...

Indeed, I do not see any evidence that anyone in this IAHC discussion
is using an Internet Technology Recognizer, so what hope do we have of
their finding an Internet Compatible Solution?  Very little, I think!

So, let me propose some clues for recognition:

1.  It has to be extensible!

    Choosing 7 new gTLDs is not an extensible technology, 
    if the next 7 need to be chosen by reconvening the IAHC.
    This totally fails the core concept of extensibility.

2.  It has to be self deploying...  

    All good Internet Technology deploys itself in the sense that it
    is independently adopted and used by the mass of Internet users
    who do so by their own autonomous decisions and actions.  There is
    no central Internet systems configuration authority.  So, the IAHC
    is not in a very good position to be making deployment decisions
    based on centralized authority.  

    What we need is a decentralized scheme.  There is not enough
    authority in the world to centrally control the Internet or the
    names it uses.

3.  It has to be self organizing...

    This is related to #2 above.  What is needed is a way to
    facilitate robust name service with a distributed set of root and
    subroot name servers which self synchronize themselves at the top-
    and sub-levels using the Simple Internet Root Synch protocol (SIRS).

4.  I am sure there are more, but these are enough to make my point...
    I leave it as a student exercise to find the other Internet
    Technology Recognizers.

I think we need to look much harder for self organizing schemes which
emulate the way civil name use has evolved in a self organized way
over the last few millenia.  Then we need to find ways for this self
organizing scheme to render itself in the form of a high quality
Internet Domain Name Service, while the mass of creative people
continue to dream up new and interestingly useful names for domains.

There is absolutely no hope that the IAHC can decide on any specific
set of names that will not have to be expanded in due course.  We must
take a lesson from the original creation of the first 7 (COM, EDU,
ORG, GOV, NET, MIL, INT).  I realize that 7 is a magic number implying
completion, but I also note that natural evolution did not stop at 7
species, and the internet is not going to stop at 7 (or 14) gTLDs.  

By not thinking through to the end result of originally choosing and
holding tight at 7, instead of designing a name selection policy to be
open-ended, we have now precipitpated a crisis environment which is
trying to repeat history with Yet Another Fixed Set Of Names (YAFSON).

I realize that it is a large leap from the current well-ordered fixed-
size mindset to a new view of the problem as one of finding the right
self organizing principles to use in a Marginally Chaotic Internet
Context, but this is what has to happen to solve our gTLD problem.

BTW, I recall strenuously objecting the the original set of 7 
names, pointing out that they did not convey particularly useful
segmentations, but I was not given a hearing then either.  

I also recall inventing the NADF (North American Directory Forum)
Civil Naming Scheme which used names from existing local civil naming
infrastructures to form X.500 Distinguished Names without buying new
registrations for them all at $2500 each from ANSI, or any other
National Name Registration Service under ISO Sanction.  But, even so,
X.500 should have simply declared that Internet DNS Names should be
used for X.500 DNs, just because DNS technology and names were (at the
time) self organizing and self deploying.

In case you do not get my drift, take note that I expect that this
IAHC thing shall also pass, and that the Internet will once again
collectively work around the problems in some self organized manner.
Just stand back and watch.  It was a mistake to ever think in terms of
relying on central authority to solve the Internet naming problem, and
it is still the wrong way to proceed, but the Internet will solve its
problem in some other way, as it must.

I am resigned to being ignored yet again.  See you again in a few more
Internet years, when you can buy me a beer or two if I am right.  I do
not promise to buy you all a beer if I am wrong;-)...  Enjoy;-)...

Hava Great New Year...\Stef