[ncdnhc-discuss] Revised security resolution

[Chun Eung Hwi]

Dear Dave, 


I will try to say in your way of talking. Then, you could understand what
I feel in reading your sentenses.


> >--> The single DNS root leads to excessive administrative (not technical)
> >centralization.
> 
> Administrative centralization for a registry is required by the technical 
> nature of the DNS administered.  Hence the requirement for centralized 
> registry administration is technical.

> As to whether it is "excessive":  That is an emotional term and it is not 
> based on any metric.  Given that there currently exists no technically 
> credible way to do anything other than centralization, it can be strongly 
> argued that centralized registry administration is exactly the right 
> amount.  Not too little.  Not too much.

If it is true, the redelegation of .us should abide by the documented
procedure of ccTLD redelegation. Because it is the centralized
administration of ICANN and it is technical. Can you ensure it as a
Neustar's senior advisor, technical advisor but not management policy
advisor? Now, at least, I hope you are right at this point. 


> >ICANN should support the evolutionary development of the
> >DNS (operation and administration) away from a centralized architecture
> >(and not tightly bound by a centralized architecture)
> 
> Such a statement is useless.  Again, it is like saying that we are for 
> world peace.  Of course we are.  The problem is that no one knows how to 
> achieve it.

*This is my way of writing!*
Are you thinking the only one right answer? For world peace, people are
exploring many ways and trying to realize it. Nobody thinks nobody knows
how to achieve it. Of course, it could be possible to think that nobody
knows it and not to try to find out it. It could be tolerated but nobody
thinks that it is a good attitude. 


> >I read this statement not in technological context but in administrative
> >context. In this context, Karl Auerbach's arguments sound good.
> 
> Indeed, Karl's statements do sound highly appealing.  Unfortunately they 
> are entirely without technical credibility.
> 
> And, no, that is not just my own informed opinion.  Notice that he has 
> never pursued his arguments in the IETF.  And he probably never will, 
> because he knows that they are silly arguments, espousing a technical 
> approach that simply does not work.

You are pointing out the role of IETF for making a technical standard. We
know it. Then, what do you think that without request and concrete
proposal or recommendations of PSO, Stuat Lynn had set out the agenda of
this coming MdR meeting. What about the fact that ICANN meeting has
abrubtly become a tutorial meeting. Is it technically credible? 


Regards,

Chun Eung Hwi
------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82) 2- 583-3033
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667 
Seoul, 158-600, Korea       | eMail:   ehchun at peacenet.or.kr   
------------------------------------------------------------