[ncdnhc-discuss] Revised security resolution
Chun Eung Hwi
ehchun at peacenet.or.kr
Wed Nov 7 04:21:18 CET 2001
Dear Dave,
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 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.
Although usually this could be a writing habit, even those above phrases
look somewhat impolite. If you read my other messages in this thread
carefully, you could understand what my opinion is.
By and large, I feel that as for you, there is some severe
miscommunication or misunderstanding of others' arguments because of the
differences between your way of thinking and others'. And I think that it
frequently leads to very destructive chatterings.
I tried to clarify this point in a few ways, but it seems to be not easy
for me particularly because I am a non-English speaker.
Dave, you didn't catch what I meant at all. In my prior email, I tried to
show you that you argued that administratative centralization comes out of
its technical centralization and so those two aspects could not be
separatedly considered. So, I intentionally asked some questions concerned
with adiministratative policies assuming that those are inseparable
technical issues in line with your strange argument, which I could not
understand at all. Then again, now, you are saying that no, it is not a
technical one. In my view, sometimes or many times, you are talking about
technical ones while others are talking about administratative or policy
issues.
Your very strong belief and preoccupation that others may not understand
the necessity of one single root server - prevents you from hearing and
understanding others' arguments. In one DNS, we have only one single root
server. But it is different statement from that in other DNSes, there must
be many other root servers. What is to be the relation among those root
servers in global network reality or whether such relations should be
considered or not is another different issue.
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
------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list