Re: [ga] A Monroe Doctrine for the Internet

["M. Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Danny,
sorry to heave been busy with too many things. I missed your mail. I 
fully confirm your case. In reality, the future is that way and far 
more than you detail it.

1. the root file is no more with ICANN and the NTIA. What makes the 
"root file" authoritative is the number of people trusting it (Vint 
Cerf). The root file with the largest number of people having to 
trust it is NeuStar's root file for the GSMA (1.5 billion users) 
which includes the ".gprs" addition. This rootfile is supposedly for 
a "walled garden" (all the mobiles of the world). But I doubt that a 
walled garden of that size does not leak.

2. the root file will not be only ORSN. But it will be your, my root 
file. A root file is only my shopping list among TLD Managers. The 
only reason why it is not today is because users have not a name 
server on their machine and nameservers services.

This is why we must make once for all a difference between:

- alt-TLD: an alternative file for the same suffix. A global alt-TLD 
seems economically absurd. Like to countries claiming the same name. 
But specialised visions of the same suffix can be a value added 
service. Proximity, kid filtering, virtual language zones, etc.
- open roots - means that you can put whatever non conflicting TLD 
you want in your root file.
- alt-root - means an alternative root file to another file. For 
example it can use different nameservers for a same TLD

All this is based upon a DNS "forest" (TLD catalog). The main problem 
in this is simple: if you do that root log archives are lost to the 
US intelligence agencies which manages two of the root servers.

Take care.
jfc





At 01:34 07/11/2005, Danny Younger wrote:
> Hello Jefsey,
>
> Let's explore your assessment:  "In a global system it
> must be win/win or it is lose/lose for everyone".
>
> Let's suppose that the member states of the EU decide
> to direct their ISPs to point to ORSN (which currently
> mirrors the legacy root).  At the beginning, no harm
> occurs as everyone is still using the same sytem even
> though it's technically bifurcated.
>
> At some point, one root-system decides to recognize a
> new tld, perhaps .xxx while the other root declines to
> carry the TLD.  Still no harm done, only a diminished
> set of choices for one set of people.
>
> Eventually, a whole bunch of new tlds are added (just
> as we have a wide variety of TV channels).  As I see
> it, ultimately the end-users (the market) will decide
> which root to use and the one that has the most value
> offerings will predominate.  Still no harm to the
> end-user community.
>
> In the long run, browser developers will make it
> possible via plug-ins for anyone to switch back and
> forth between different roots.  If a tld can't be
> found on your default setting, it will then query the
> next root, and so on.
>
> I think that even with a set of different roots we can
> still have a global system.  With the technological
> opportunities that we have, why does anyone need to
> lose?
>
>
>
>
>
> --- "M. Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I am afraid Danny that you used us to be far better
> > than that.
> >
> > On 22:53 06/11/2005, Danny Younger said:
> > >"The test for consensus is instinctively known by
> > all
> > >of us (and is set forth in ICANN's contractual
> > >agreements): opposition to a particular policy is
> > >limited in scope and intensity (or is unreasoned),
> > and
> > >opposition does not stem from those specially
> > impacted
> > >by the policy. Consensus does not mean unanimity or
> > >even that a particular percentage of those voting
> > have
> > >agreed to a particular policy. Rather, it means
> > that
> > >there is very substantial support for the policy
> > and
> > >very good reason to override any remaining
> > dissent."
> >
> > Such a definition fits the Lynch law.
> > - everyone decides to lynch A
> > - only A is unreasonedly opposed
> > - opposition stems from A's wife and kids
> >
> > This definition is the perfect definition of a crowd
> > reaction to the
> > decision of a tyran about what is "good" and what is
> > "evil";
> >
> > >As we look at the WSIS process, we currently see
> > the
> > >U.S. on one side of the debate and the rest of the
> > >world on the other side.  The consensus view does
> > not
> > >at the moment support the U.S. position.
> >
> > We are in a global system. USA understand it
> > centralised, Govs
> > understand it decentralised, users and technology
> > want it distributed.
> >
> > Only the US culture understands global as
> > unilateral. While all the
> > other cultures understand global as multilateral.
> > There is no policy
> > into this. There is a difference in dictionnary
> > based upon a lack of
> > experience (the USA, as a culture and a nation, have
> > always been a
> > unilateral power, having one to one conflicts and no
> > experience at
> > compromising and being one among others). This is no
> > arrogance, this
> > is a fact. Today it is also a lack.
> >
> > The definition of consensus above illustrates this.
> >
> > No one wants to "defeat" USA. We all want to stop
> > being "defeated" by
> > the USA. There is a difference. And we need a
> > consensus where there
> > is _no_ opposition, whatever it can be, because we
> > have to live it
> > all together. In a global system it must be win/win
> > or it is
> > lose/lose for everyone. It is true that the USA have
> > to understand
> > and accept that.
> >
> > >The big question is this:  "Will the U.S.
> > government
> > >honor Internet tradition and accept what appears to
> > be
> > >a worldwide consensus, or not?"
> >
> > There is no Internet tradition. The only place where
> > you could claim
> > this "tradition" is wanted to be respected is IETF.
> > IETF embodied
> > this in a very nice way: though its definition of
> > the Internet. It
> > said the Internet was the adherence to the IETF
> > documents. This
> > established a consensus. RFC 3935 has changed that:
> > it is the USC
> > Communication Code definition (all the packet
> > switched networks
> > interoperated computers) and establishes the IETF
> > its favorite
> > technical support - and ICANN its operator (?) and
> > the USG its ruler (?).
> >
> > Something you (US citizens) should understand. You
> > are like everyone
> > else. You want to be the boss of your system. You
> > want your Gov to
> > protect your interests. Question is: do you think
> > that to do it you
> > must control or sell what belong to us? If the
> > response is yes, we
> > all are in agreement. If the response is no, we all
> > are at war. There
> > is no mistery in this. This is the way the world
> > goes for millions
> > years. No need of ICANN, GNSO or WSIS to understand
> > that.
> >
> > We come in peace. The response is yours.
> > jfc
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com