[ncdnhc-discuss] Revised security resolution

[Dave Crocker]

At 12:01 AM 11/7/2001 +0900, Chun Eung Hwi wrote:
>Here, I forward Karl Auerbach's response to your comment.

Chun,

It is easy to send copies of comments back and forth.  The difficult task 
is to evaluate those responses and form your own opinions.  This means that 
you must do some work and try to understand the problem and understand the 
claims made for and against proposed solutions.

If you prefer to evaluate technical matters only in terms of which speaker 
you like, or pretend that every statement is equally valid, the result is 
quite certain to be the wrong one.

Please note that Karl's note continues to avoid responding to the issues 
raised in the technical draft I cited.  This is a technical issue.  Karl is 
not willing to have his statements considered in the technical forum that 
is appropriate for this issue.  Please consider why he behave in this 
manner, given that he is extremely experienced with the IETF.


>One could take Crocker's argument and apply it to any evolving technolgy
>- whether it be touch-tone telephones evolving from rotary dial or it be
>HDTV evolving from NTSC/PAL/SECAM - as one creates technology that
>supersets the old, those who don't advance with the technology often find
>that they can not readily use the new features.  The same is true with
>those who adhere to the non-evolving ICANN/NTIA single-root concept.

Gosh.  Karl is right.  There was no central standardization and no 
coordination for any of those transitions.  That is why you could never be 
sure whether the new touchtone phone would work; or rather, sometimes it 
would work and sometimes it would not.

By the way:  HDTV is not an evolution of the earlier standards.  That is 
why it is incompatible.  By contrast, color was added to television in a 
way that ensured compatibility.  Choice of the specification for color was 
very, very carefully centralized.

If Karl is so sure that complete independence is the right answer, then he 
should resign from ICANN and pursue creating an independent root.  But note 
that he is not doing that.  Instead he is insisting that all of the 
supposed independence he wants be attained by forcing ICANN to conform to 
some other set of standards that Karl has in mind.  So:  independence 
without independence.

He offers clever sound-bites that pretend to claim that the solution to a 
central authority is to have NO authority.  However when pressed further, 
he will acknowledge that what is required is another layer of coordination 
on top of the "independent" multiple roots.  That additional layer is a 
central authority.  Those independent roots cease to be independent.

Similarly, he claims that he has run an independent root for years.  When 
pressed further, he explains that he has run an independent root SERVER, 
not independent root administration.  And it is no surprise that his 
"independent" root server starts with the contents of the ICANN root.  So, 
in fact, even his own service is not independent.


At 03:28 AM 11/7/2001 +0900, Chun Eung Hwi wrote:
>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.

Mi-an-ham-ni-da.  I have no idea why you think that my consulting on 
technical matters for Neustar would permit me special knowledge about ICANN 
procedures.  You used the word "ensure".  If you are suggesting that I have 
any control over ICANN procedures I assure you I do not.

Yes, I understand that my comments are not polite, and I very much do 
understand that they are especially not polite from an Asian 
preference.  However YOU need to understand that this is not a polite 
debate and neither Karl nor I are Asian.

Karl is promoting a false sense about matters that are purely 
technical.  He has been promoting it for a very long time and he causes 
honest people to be confused about what is possible.


>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.

If someone has the answer, then why do we not have world peace?  The answer 
to THAT question is that people have ideas and hopes.  They do not have 
answers.  People experiment with their ideas.  So far, in the entire 
history of humanity, all of those experiments have failed.  Perhaps one 
day, someone will create an idea that WILL lead to world peace.  We are 
very far from it, and we are not getting closer.

Similarly, Karl is espousing theories and wishes. Note however that he is 
not willing to treat his theories as an experiment.  He not even willing to 
treat them as a serious technical proposal.

That is because his theories are known to fail.  That is why he a) does not 
develop a detailed technical specification for his proposal, and b) does 
not pursue that proposal in the IETF.  Again, please remember that Karl is 
very experienced with the IETF and he knows that the real test of 
seriousness is to create a proposal.  With a proposal, people do not debate 
theory.  They debate the specification.

So, yes.  As of today, there is only one right answer to the question of 
DNS node administration:

         Each node must have a single registry.

         That registry must have a coherent and regulated relationship
         with each sub-node below it and with the super-node above it.


d/


----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464