IP: Basket and eggs, was Re: ICANN and IBM

[David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

From: Ed Gerck <egerck () NMA COM>
Subject:      Basket and eggs, was Re: ICANN and IBM
X-To:         John Patrick <patrick () us ibm com>
To: DOMAIN-POLICY () LISTS INTERNIC NET

John:

I applaud your initiative of coming forward with a reasoning for the actions
of IBM regarding domain names.  You must believe the reasoning yourself,
as I can see from your words, and this is also very positive.

But, what if IBM and you are making some basic wrong assumptions?  I mean,
wrong technical assumptions?  Then, not only will IBM and you be putting
all your eggs in one basket but you will also have provided proof of lack of
due diligence to that very same "Internet community" that you desire to lead
and be useful for.

What do I mean by "putting all your eggs in one basket"?  The metaphor is
precise, I mean putting all Internet management under one hood, one rule, one
policy, one law.  This, which at first might be thought as beneficial 
goes counter
the very history of trade and law itself -- since we do find value in 
diversity, we
do find value in using different rules for different purposes, we do 
find value in
separating governing powers so as to introduce a system of checks and balances,
and we also do find value in different laws for different countries, 
for different
states in one country an even for different communities in one state. Why would
the Internet, being much larger, be different? Or, have different needs?

Of  course, the above is a systemic reason of wrong assumptions in 
the current IBM
Weltanschaung, but one which requires non-technical arguments as well. Now, to
provide you with one technical example of wrong assumptions, which 
cannot be denied
even by mustering oneself on successful totalitarian regimes that can 
rule over a billion
people, let me just quote your own text:

John Patrick wrote:

> Because the Internet is made up of many heterogeneous and
> separately-managed networks, the early Internet inventors and pioneers
> realized that a central third party was needed to manage the assignment of
> domain names and network addresses so that  "www.myfavoritewebsite.com"
> always translated to the correct address, even though different users would
> consult different servers to do the translation.

The above is false in totum because its central argument, that "a central third
party was needed to manage the assignment of domain names", is false.  The
DNS was created exactly to avoid that, which was the case of the old HOSTS.TXT
file. The mechanism of zone delegation in DNS allows the assignment of domain
names to be fully decentralized, and yet globally unique and meaningful.

The only object  that needs to be centralized in the DNS is a common 
reference for
*name resolution* -- which is the root name-server.  To take over 
*name assignment*
by confusing it with name resolution is an over-reaching action, unjustified by
any technical argument even in the current DNS (i.e., even 
outcounting eventual but
certain technological improvements and paradigm changes in the DNS).  Which
over-reaching spills over to "management of domain name resolution policy",
"management of registrars" and so on -- creating pressing problems, not solving
them.

Further, by placing the decisions of network address assignment (IP 
numbers) together
with DNS matters in one basket, you are uniting what is, by design, 
separate. The needs
of network traffic (IP) are independent of the needs of user services 
(DNS).  They also
serve different goals, and different customers. They do not belong together.

So, IBM and you are basing your course of action on reasons which are 
unreasonable.
So, please accept that not everyone may wish to put all their eggs 
into that basket,
even though that basket is the only one you see at this time.

Of course, you may still argue that the "one basket" approach has 
been made very
solid. Indeed, that "one basket" is:

1. not market-accountable (a non-profit with no measurable market 
value in stock
shares, for example),

2. not community-accountable (no elections),

3. not anti-trust accountable (it is a government appointed company, and the
government can only appoint one company),

4. not legally-accountable (has no assets to be put at stake; has no owner),

5. allows registrars and registries to be also non-accountable (a TLD 
registry can
say that it do not choose the registrar, the registrar was chosen and 
imposed; a
TLD registrar can say that the rules make it just a pass-through service), and

5. makes end-users the only entity accountable in the entire system, 
the only ones
that can be sued and the only ones that may lose anything (time, money and
domain names).

Finally, in my reasoning, such a finesse of seeking lack of 
accountability in all levels
of name control can only be justified because it was presumed by its creators
to be necessary for a central control system -- the one basket.  The 
fact, however,
that no one needs to control name assignment is however a reason for the eggs
not to be put into what has become a trap.  And, the more solid and unified the
trap is, the less reasons for any egg to be put there. Presumably, 
not even IBM.

And, let's be candid. The issue is Internet and information control. 
Yes, certainly,
people would bemoan a sloppy internet.  But they would scream long and loud if
it were highly controlled (to the local level).

At this point, you may ask what the solution is.  If this is the 
case, I have succeeded
in the initial goal I set forth for this short message, in my second 
opening paragraph.
Because, once we question pre-concepts, we can move forward. Not before,
unfortunately.

Cheers,

Ed Gerck
______________________________________________________________________
http://www.mcg.org.br/authors/eg.htm                    egerck () nma com