[ncdnhc-discuss] Re : [Implementation of Evolution and Reform] Another Exploration?

[todd glassey]

----- Original Message -----
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey at club-internet.fr>
To: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Re : [Implementation of Evolution and Reform]
Another Exploration?


> At 16:14 29/07/02, todd glassey wrote:
> >Dear YJ,
> >The Governments have no specific role: tThey have legitimacy and law over
> >what is national. ITU has legitimacy from Govs over what is
international.
> >ICANN has legitimacy and delegation over what comes from the USG in the
> >Internet (.arpa today still leading sub-namespace) .
> >
> >EXCEPT WHEN THE ITU'S SERVICES VIOLATE LOCAL REGULATION, TREATY, OR LAW.
>
> Please indicate example which stayed. The point is not the violation. The
> point is the lack of correction. Treaties come first, before laws. ITU
> comes from a treaty.

But you forgot to say that this treaty iis codified inside of most Country's
body of law or in their internal regulations and so that the level it
touches the normal mortal it is law or regulation. Look at how in the US the
FCC enforces the ITU's rules as applicable.

>
> >The question is to know where the other legitimacies and capacities will
> >house themselves. This is clearly defined in the initial agreements and
in
> >the very nature of what is a root name (ie the root of the names of a
> >sub-namspace into another sub-namespace and subsequently/originally -
> >depending on the project - in the global namespace).
> >
> >WHY IS IT NECESSARY THAT THERE ONLY BE ONEGLOBAL NAMESPACE.
>
> unless you have two brains, there is only one global table made of all the
> combinations of 257 ascii printable characters plus dot. with no double
dot
> and last character a dot.This the global name space.

I have more than two brains and they are all entitled to run their own root
so that they individiually the benefit of a simple and uniform network
naming convention.


> The final dot (root)
> means that you are to read it the otherway around (the root is at the end
> instead of at the begining). Nothing very complex to uderstand.
>
> >THIS IS A MISNOMER AND LIE LEFT OVER FROM THE OLD DAYS WHEN THE ARPANET
> >AND NSFNETS WERE SMALL ENOUGH TO EXIST UNDER A SINGLE ROOT, BUT TODAY'S
> >INTERNET CANNOT POSSIBILITY DEAL WITH THE IP NAME-ISSUE'S AND NAME
> >COLLISSIONS WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO OPERATE MULTIPLE ROOTS.
>
> The root of the namespace is the dot, meaning an empty space.

Now I think that the final dot actuality refers to the "default or ICANN set
of Root Servers" and that is really that as they say. The concept of a ROOT
is tied directly to that which resolves it.


> Nothing to do
> with ARPA and NFS?

Answered above, but I also think you mean NSF (the National Science
Foundation)... right? NFS is the RPC based Network File Service.

> Just the way a database starts being empty before you
> add the first entry.
>
> >PERSONALLY, I THINK  THAT ITS  THE ARROGANCE THAT REFUSES TO ADDRESS THIS
> >AND FORCES THE ISSUES INTO A LARGER  FORUM, THAT IS REALLY THE KEY TO THE
> >DETRIMENT NOW FACING THE GROWTH AND NATIONALIZATION OF THE VARIOUS
> >INTERNETS.
>
> There are as many global internet as Internet participants (in the
> ENglish.French meaning of the "global" word). The ultimate decision
belongs
> to the user, the only thing is to permit him the decision, what Mr. Gates
> is not really excited about. Otherwise the "RESOLV.INI" file would be
> easily accessible on DOS/Windows. :-)
> jfc
>
>
> PS. BTW not really complex to get half of the world resolving on
> alt(sic)roots. I am only surprised no one tried :-)  You should certainly
> know how to do it? Mr. Gates recently gave himself the right to legally
> make it ....

yes - Maybe I should talk to him about it.

Todd

>
>
>