Re: Thread 5: Defining the namespace

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Eniar,

  You are absolutly right!  I have tried to make some of these
points in several ways myself.  But you did a much better job 
than I.  The members of the IEHC, are quite a ways behind what
is acctually going on, form my viewpoint.  They are obviously
off base in trying to centeralize control of the internet
in any fassion.  I do believe in a overall standard, and a body
such as the IECH could set that standard.  But not this group
of members.  They do not even seem to be aware of what extensibiity
is, nor the technologies that have already been developed and tested.

Regards,


Einar Stefferud wrote:
> 
> 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

-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :972-447-1878
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com