Re: Thread 5: Defining the namespace

[Paul Ezra Kautz <pek@iu.big-island.va.us>]

Einar Stefferud wrote:
>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.

I agree. Names should be chosen by the registrars and the community 
as needed. But if there is a testing period, there should be a small 
finite number temporarily. (Maybe even one.)

>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.

This is naive. Look at the current system in two ways:

(1) It is centralized. IANA, InterNIC, and Paul Vixie make all the
    TLD decisions. You just never noticed because they kept pretty
    benevolent about it. Last year, NSI made itself noticed.
    AlterNIC proved this - they have very little penetration.

(2) It is decentralized. Like global power, it's mostly about
    recognition. (Unlike global power, there's no cross-domain
    military force.) AlterNIC proved this - they got some people
    to recognize THEM. I liken AlterNIC to the Republic of China
    on the island of Taiwan - they have 1/60th the population and
    and 1/250th the land, but they did get the UN to recognize
    them for a while...

Despite being decentralized in the abstract, decisions DO come 
down from above. This is a bit like the TV network affiliates, 
who have the ability to not run any program, but actually do 
anyway, for economic reasons. It's more practical for all of us 
to use IANA-sanctioned root servers, but we don't have to.

The proposed system is exactly the same. I hope that it will be
more democratic, with elected community representation having
as much say as the registrars or the IANA. Something few 
"anarchists" realize is that they're placing the actual power
in the hands of the few who are unelected and certainly don't
have public interest in mind (IANA may have, but the new
registrars won't).

>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).

I don't see how this contradicts the draft's principles.

>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.  

I agree that we should not place artificial limits on the number
of GTLDs to be created. But EDU, GOV, MIL, and INT aren't GTLDs -
they're not generic.

>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.  

*Generic* TLDs are not supposed to provide useful segmentations.
When the current ones were created, they weren't trying to be
generic, true. But now I think we need MORE generic ITLDs.

I also think we need chartered ITLDs to provide useful segmentations,
but nobody's answered me on that thread yet.

>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 admire your idealism, but I think you are losing track of where
real power lies and will lie. You are wrong to think that the draft 
presents any danger to the "Internet Way" because it's simply 
impossible to exert real force. It will always be decentralized 
recognition of centralized authority.

We have found NSI to be an unacceptable centralized authority, so
we are trying to design a better one.

Paul Kautz