>The authority for the root, as you yourself have agreed before, is the
>consent of the operators of the tens of thousands of name servers on the
>Internet; for all practical purposes this means the world's ISPs. They
>accept the thirteen root name servers as authoritative and this makes
>them authoritative.
This is because every ISP in the world stands on a platform of being able
to connect you, the Internet customer to the entire world.
I do not know a single Internet provider that would support the
notion of a split root, and therefore a divided Internet.
>In this case the US Government and Ira Magaziner are intelligent enough
>to understand that the Net cannot be commanded. Neither the USG nor
>IANA rules the Internet.
By implication you are suggesting other players are not? Perhaps
you are correct here, and time will teach us all a thing or two.
>The Net can, however, be persuaded. Unfortunately, it is the US
>Government that has set out to build consensus and gather support.
Politicians at least understand the importance of marketing, even if
they don't do so well in its application.
The key players in the gTLD-MoU organisation firmly believe they
have a mandate based on consensus. The problem is, on an international
scale its a very limited group indeed.
>The gTLD MOU has never commanded more than a trivial level of support
>because too many of its advocates considered building such support in
>the Internet community of little importance.
Here lies my greatest disappointment. As one small voice in the sandpit
I have through the PAB consistently tried to bring this to the attention
of those around me.
Identifying the customer has to come first. Creating solutions which
meet their needs has to be the focus.
When we finally see that this challenge will not be resolved by slugging
each other, maybe then we try another way.
I fear this time has not yet arrived.
>Even more importantly, the US Government is not asking for any change,
>but your group is.
Well actually, I think everybody including the US government is looking
for change.
The root of the problem (no pun intended!) is that the domain holders
themselves and the customers of the domain name system, Internet providers
around the world, are not on board yet.
>No one has denied that CORE is threatening to add .firm/store/etc
>to the root zone unilaterally. The only way to do this is to add these
>to the root zone in one of the twelve secondary root name servers,
>declare it primary, and demand that the others start taking their
>information from it. Personally I can't believe that IANA would take
>any such action. It would immediately lead to inconsistency in the
>root zone between root name servers. It's hard to believe that any
>number of the operators of the other root name servers would follow
>the new "false pope". The ISPs of the world would rapidly correct the
>problem by eliminating references to the rogue root servers.
As an Internet provider, I would not support any action by POC / CORE
which created a split in the root.
Indeed if such action were to take place, I would remove my support
for the gTLD-MoU organisation forthwith.
I am not participating to be a part of a group who would seek to divide
the world, in order that they may see their dream to a conclusion.
>It seems clear that the gTLD MOUvement is split on this issue. IANA
>and the POC have said nothing. Kent Crispin, chair of the PAB, appears
>to be among those looking for confrontation but other PAB members are
>silent.
This PAB member and POC observer is no longer silent
>The leadership of the CORE seems bent on war, but there is
>active opposition from at least a few registrar-members.
They are reasonably concerned about their survival. I can understand this.
>We believe that all parties involved should stop and think before
>taking any action on this issue - and then take action to calm things
>down. The more responsible members of CORE should forcefully make their
>opinions clear before the activists cause irreparable damage. The POC
>should certainly act. Its role is to set policy: that policy should be
>one of conciliation and persuasion, not confrontation.
I am strongly in agreement with you here.
>Although we have reservations about many aspects of the gTLD MOU, we
>believe that there is also much of value in it. We do not want to see
>it destroyed.
Nor I, but it needs to become a document and an activity which Internet
providers and their customers around the world want to be a part of.
Not the words and misunderstood intentions of a minority.
>EuroISPA, which is a grouping of the Internet trade associations of
>Europe, has agreed to urge its members to sign the gTLD MOU - with
>explicit reservations - and bring more sober and reasoned voices into
>the process. We urge others to do the same.
Welcome aboard, make sure you have a life jacket fitted with a whistle!
regards
Peter Mott
Chief Enthusiast
2Day Internet Limited.
--------------------------------------------
gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight Committee observer