[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: About Alternative Naming Scheme: (was before Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: Why is "Marketing ccTLDs as generics"on NC Agenda?)

[Jefsey Morfin]

Dave,
this is what Vany is wanting to discuss.

On 17:19 05/10/01, Dave Crocker said:
>all of the previous alternate root efforts also "used" the ICANN 
>root.  they used it as a base and THEN THEY ADDED TO IT.
>It is the addition of TLDs that are not in the ICANN root that is the 
>problem.  This is covered in:
> 
><http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-crocker-unique-assign-01.txt>

I am glad you eventually acknowledge that "alternative (sic) roots" are 
value added roots. This kills half of ICP-3 and most of the objections to 
the so-called "alternative" roots. No risk to go where you do not want to 
go - the archi used stupid argument against "alt.roots" - except when Vint 
creates a collider.


Now, your document: "This paper describes technical requirements for 
centralized administration".

I fully accept that decentralization and then distribution may seem 
unatural to many. I also accept that old timers started building ARPANet as 
a DoD contracted network and did not fully saw the impact of Louis Pouzin's 
contributions (zones, end to end datagrams), the power of the international 
data network naming plan, the way the interconnect/international system 
developped.

But never the less the result is here. There is a word totally foreign to 
the Internet and it is  "centralized".

Security and governance conflicts are over the "root" and its management. 
The root is an out of context concept. I think we will see it fade away 
through a re-reading of the naming plan and of BIND by new ventures such as 
New.net, or more like XTNS. After 16 years ...

Jefsey