On 10:38 01/08/02, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu said: >On Thu, 01 Aug 2002 00:34:55 PDT, Dave Crocker said: > > This federation that you are describing was formed without any involvement > > of IANA/ICANN. It was done entirely independently. > >Very true. It's also true that if I refuse to answer the phone, I will >not have any phone conversations. > > > So the idea that IANA/ICANN was somehow obligated to coordinate its own > > activities with an independent effort is a very basic non sequitur. > >A case could be made that if ICANN was even *pretending* to serve the public >interest, they could at least enter into a *discussion* with the ORSC people. >Of course, we all know they won't even do that with their OWN board of >directors without a court order. I am sorry to repeat it (and I will try not to say it too many times again): the terms of the ".arpa" sub global namespace delegation are described in RFC 920 by Jon Postel himself. The creation of ".biz" (as .info and others) are not permitted under that delegation. However ICANN obviously acted in this along with the DoC recommendation. The question is: should ICANN obey the USG or comply with the initial ITU community agreement - FCC included. ".biz" could have been a way to make Justice/Congress commit on this. We all are confronted to the age of a stantard agreement which works well but of which the involved parties forgot a long ago the standard, the rationales, their rights and their duties. Solution 1. we forget about it and build it anew. Then ICANN, ccTLDs, gTLDs lare level with ORSC, New.net, etc. We will need an international forum where to discuss and settle a new agreement: this can only be the ITU. I am not sure we want that. Solution 2. we keep going, we trace back the old legitimacies to avoid unnecessary wars and most of all we talk together until we reach a global common understanding. ICANN in publishing the ICP-3 document shown it wants to root in its "permanent" policy, but they also plainly show they want neither to consider legitimacies nor to talk. Solution 3. we keep going but we rebuild anew. This seems to be the impossible ICANN policy in building their Intercontract system. It obviously does not work and leads to strong oppositions. The reason why I join the IETF debate is that I think technology may be the response. The same as the namespace agreement has aged, the same the technology has aged. We are endlessly arguing on old stuff. Aftyer 20 years, we need a clean sheet review of the DNS, based on today and future users' needs. IMHO this goes into two directions: a new DNS core system analysis (DNS.2) and an extended DNS services (DNS+) logic. IMHO in going ahead in that two directions (as the iDNs show the path) we will soon discover that the ICANN preoccupations and solutions are totally outdated by what we will uncover and specify. Obviously we will meet the same kind of oppositions to DNS.2/DNS+ than was met for IPv6. The question is then to know if this effort will be carried within the IETF or not. I think DNS.2 cannot be specified outside of the IETF but a DNS.1.B can. Most of DNS+, which comes before / aside / on top of the DNS, can be privately developped, but without proper integration. This would lead to a large number of proprietary solutions and to large splits in the usage of the network. So the question is not to know if we have to make that effort or not, but if it will be a clean move or not. To take a comparison, situation in the DNS today is like if IPv8 was the only option. Sorry to have been long. This all I had to say. jfc