If ICANN does not coordinate the allocation and assignments of names in the domain name system then who does that? What is the situations today, who perform that task? Kavouss
Hi Kavouss, I cut the cc: list down a little. Hope that's ok. On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:51:13PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
If ICANN does not coordinate the allocation and assignments of names in the domain name system then who does that? What is the situations today, who perform that task?
I tried to answer this in the chat today, but I was apparently unsuccessful. Let me try again here. The answer is, "Nobody does that." There is no central co-ordination of allocation and assignment of names in the DNS. That is in fact the genius of the design of the DNS. The DNS is possibly the most successful distributed database ever. It is distributed in two ways, which might be called data maintenance and data query operation. The "data query operation" is caching, which allows the DNS to perform very well; it's not relevant to our discussion. The "data maintenance", however, is fundamental to the model of the operation of the system, and is how DNS has managed to thrive. At every dot in a domain name, it is possible to add a "zone cut": a place where a new operator can take over a piece of the domain name space. The process of making a zone cut is called "delegation", and it involved putting name server resource record(s) on the parent side and "apex" records -- the same name server resource record(s) plus a Start Of Authority (SOA) record -- on the child side. So, for instance, Afilias delegates yitter.info to me, so in my zone there is an SOA record at yitter.info. What that means is that Afilias is no longer responsible for things that happen underneath yitter.info (because I have the authority -- that's what the SOA means). This means that wherever there is a zone cut, there's also an end of the co-ordinator function (in a strict sense of controlling names). Afilias is responsible to co-ordinate everything under info _except_ below the stuff they delegated away (like yitter.info). Verisign is responsible to co-ordinate everything under com except below that which they delegated away (like anvilwalrusden.com). CIRA is responsible to co-ordinate everything under ca except below that which they delegated away (like crankycanuck.ca). And finally, ICANN is responsible to co-ordinate everything under the root zone (which is represented as ".") except below that which they delegated away (like com, net, org, info, ca, and so on). Now, operators who delegate away parts of the name space can make rules about what conditions they impose for the delegation. CIRA, for instance, won't delegate anything in ca unless you're a Canadian citizen or are in Canada. (I happen to be a citizen, so I get to register and maintain crankycanuck.ca. I'm also cranky, but that was not a condition for my registration.) You might say that ICANN uses its consensus policies as this sort of condition. So why, you might ask, isn't this all centrally co-ordinated? Well, because it makes things work better. The Internet is a massively distributed thing. It would be bureaucratic and inflexible if every time I wanted to add a new computer in anvilwalrusden.com I had to talk to ICANN or Verisign. But I don't need to talk to anybody, because the name space is delegated to me. That means I can operate my thing without anybody else being bothered. This make operation of the Internet simpler, cheaper, and faster than it otherwise would be. And I can even give a chunk of my namespace to someone else -- I could create shaveaukroasts.anvilwalrusden.com[1] and give it to a friend and colleague, and I wouldn't need to tell anyone in particular (though I'd still have to tell literally everyone, by putting it in the DNS). This lack of central co-ordination is one reason the DNS has been so successful. I hope that explanation helps. If you have further questions about this, feel free to ask me more. Best regards, A [1] anvilwalrusden is an anagram of "Andrew Sullivan". I will leave as an exercise for the reader the anagram of "shaveaukroasts". -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Andrew, I suppose we’re splitting hairs, but I would say there is indeed coordination of the DNS. It’s simply distributed, as you said. But at each level — or precisely, at each zone cut, there is a well defined single entity that coordinates allocations and assignments of names within that part of the tree. I think the statement “Nobody does that” is potentially misleading, particularly to those who don’t have a reasonably deep understanding the system. Steve On Apr 17, 2016, at 6:29 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi Kavouss,
I cut the cc: list down a little. Hope that's ok.
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:51:13PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
If ICANN does not coordinate the allocation and assignments of names in the domain name system then who does that? What is the situations today, who perform that task?
I tried to answer this in the chat today, but I was apparently unsuccessful. Let me try again here.
The answer is, "Nobody does that." There is no central co-ordination of allocation and assignment of names in the DNS. That is in fact the genius of the design of the DNS.
The DNS is possibly the most successful distributed database ever. It is distributed in two ways, which might be called data maintenance and data query operation. The "data query operation" is caching, which allows the DNS to perform very well; it's not relevant to our discussion. The "data maintenance", however, is fundamental to the model of the operation of the system, and is how DNS has managed to thrive.
At every dot in a domain name, it is possible to add a "zone cut": a place where a new operator can take over a piece of the domain name space. The process of making a zone cut is called "delegation", and it involved putting name server resource record(s) on the parent side and "apex" records -- the same name server resource record(s) plus a Start Of Authority (SOA) record -- on the child side. So, for instance, Afilias delegates yitter.info to me, so in my zone there is an SOA record at yitter.info. What that means is that Afilias is no longer responsible for things that happen underneath yitter.info (because I have the authority -- that's what the SOA means).
This means that wherever there is a zone cut, there's also an end of the co-ordinator function (in a strict sense of controlling names). Afilias is responsible to co-ordinate everything under info _except_ below the stuff they delegated away (like yitter.info). Verisign is responsible to co-ordinate everything under com except below that which they delegated away (like anvilwalrusden.com). CIRA is responsible to co-ordinate everything under ca except below that which they delegated away (like crankycanuck.ca). And finally, ICANN is responsible to co-ordinate everything under the root zone (which is represented as ".") except below that which they delegated away (like com, net, org, info, ca, and so on).
Now, operators who delegate away parts of the name space can make rules about what conditions they impose for the delegation. CIRA, for instance, won't delegate anything in ca unless you're a Canadian citizen or are in Canada. (I happen to be a citizen, so I get to register and maintain crankycanuck.ca. I'm also cranky, but that was not a condition for my registration.) You might say that ICANN uses its consensus policies as this sort of condition.
So why, you might ask, isn't this all centrally co-ordinated? Well, because it makes things work better. The Internet is a massively distributed thing. It would be bureaucratic and inflexible if every time I wanted to add a new computer in anvilwalrusden.com I had to talk to ICANN or Verisign. But I don't need to talk to anybody, because the name space is delegated to me. That means I can operate my thing without anybody else being bothered. This make operation of the Internet simpler, cheaper, and faster than it otherwise would be. And I can even give a chunk of my namespace to someone else -- I could create shaveaukroasts.anvilwalrusden.com[1] and give it to a friend and colleague, and I wouldn't need to tell anyone in particular (though I'd still have to tell literally everyone, by putting it in the DNS).
This lack of central co-ordination is one reason the DNS has been so successful. I hope that explanation helps. If you have further questions about this, feel free to ask me more.
Best regards,
A
[1] anvilwalrusden is an anagram of "Andrew Sullivan". I will leave as an exercise for the reader the anagram of "shaveaukroasts".
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 06:39:50PM -0400, Steve Crocker wrote:
Andrew,
I suppose we’re splitting hairs, but I would say there is indeed coordination of the DNS. It’s simply distributed, as you said. But at each level — or precisely, at each zone cut, there is a well defined single entity that coordinates allocations and assignments of names within that part of the tree.
I think the statement “Nobody does that” is potentially misleading, particularly to those who don’t have a reasonably deep understanding the system.
I wouldn't call this "splitting hairs" so much as "another perspective"; and from that perspective you're quite right: _lots_ of people co-ordinate the assignment in the DNS. And you're also quite correct that for any given name, someone had responsibility for the allocation and assignment. I was merely responding to the question I understood Kavouss to be asking: "Who's the central authority?" Of course, there isn't one of those. But for any given name, there is an authority anyway. The Internet is large, it contains multitudes. I would even go further, and point out that this very distributed operation is also the reason that things like registration data systems (the things formerly called "whois") are so important. Since the authority for a name is not a single entity, but could be just about anyone on the Internet, it's necessary to be able to look up who might be responsible for some specific name. That's what RDSes are for, and why it is good that ICANN consensus policies say that people ought to be able to rely on them. Finally, I'll also note that this multifaceted answer is a big part of why I am so keen to ensure that ICANN can't end up "holding the bag" for all parts of the DNS. I think it's critically important that ICANN can't be held responsible for misbehaviour by people over whom it has no control or influence. Many people view the Internet without a very Internetty set of assumptions: they want to know which one organization is in charge of some phænomenon. On the Internet, of course, the answer is never quite so clear cut, and it's important for all of us that ICANN can't be forced (through some IRP or otherwise) to take responsibility for co-ordinating things that are (in the literal, technical sense) beyond its authority. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Ack. Tnx. Steve On Apr 17, 2016, at 6:57 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 06:39:50PM -0400, Steve Crocker wrote:
Andrew,
I suppose we’re splitting hairs, but I would say there is indeed coordination of the DNS. It’s simply distributed, as you said. But at each level — or precisely, at each zone cut, there is a well defined single entity that coordinates allocations and assignments of names within that part of the tree.
I think the statement “Nobody does that” is potentially misleading, particularly to those who don’t have a reasonably deep understanding the system.
I wouldn't call this "splitting hairs" so much as "another perspective"; and from that perspective you're quite right: _lots_ of people co-ordinate the assignment in the DNS. And you're also quite correct that for any given name, someone had responsibility for the allocation and assignment. I was merely responding to the question I understood Kavouss to be asking: "Who's the central authority?" Of course, there isn't one of those. But for any given name, there is an authority anyway. The Internet is large, it contains multitudes.
I would even go further, and point out that this very distributed operation is also the reason that things like registration data systems (the things formerly called "whois") are so important. Since the authority for a name is not a single entity, but could be just about anyone on the Internet, it's necessary to be able to look up who might be responsible for some specific name. That's what RDSes are for, and why it is good that ICANN consensus policies say that people ought to be able to rely on them.
Finally, I'll also note that this multifaceted answer is a big part of why I am so keen to ensure that ICANN can't end up "holding the bag" for all parts of the DNS. I think it's critically important that ICANN can't be held responsible for misbehaviour by people over whom it has no control or influence. Many people view the Internet without a very Internetty set of assumptions: they want to know which one organization is in charge of some phænomenon. On the Internet, of course, the answer is never quite so clear cut, and it's important for all of us that ICANN can't be forced (through some IRP or otherwise) to take responsibility for co-ordinating things that are (in the literal, technical sense) beyond its authority.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Yeah that's correct but the fact that ICANN could redelegate .info (due to her control of the root) could imply some level of coordination (though not necessarily allocation). Something to relate with is the RIR LIR where the RIR does not really care what prefix you allocate in your "assigned/leased" prefix but could withdraw your entire allocation if you fail on your sub-allocation policy requirements. In that instance we do still say RIR has coordination role in their region. Cheers! Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 17 Apr 2016 5:30 p.m., "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi Kavouss,
I cut the cc: list down a little. Hope that's ok.
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:51:13PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
If ICANN does not coordinate the allocation and assignments of names in the domain name system then who does that? What is the situations today, who perform that task?
I tried to answer this in the chat today, but I was apparently unsuccessful. Let me try again here.
The answer is, "Nobody does that." There is no central co-ordination of allocation and assignment of names in the DNS. That is in fact the genius of the design of the DNS.
The DNS is possibly the most successful distributed database ever. It is distributed in two ways, which might be called data maintenance and data query operation. The "data query operation" is caching, which allows the DNS to perform very well; it's not relevant to our discussion. The "data maintenance", however, is fundamental to the model of the operation of the system, and is how DNS has managed to thrive.
At every dot in a domain name, it is possible to add a "zone cut": a place where a new operator can take over a piece of the domain name space. The process of making a zone cut is called "delegation", and it involved putting name server resource record(s) on the parent side and "apex" records -- the same name server resource record(s) plus a Start Of Authority (SOA) record -- on the child side. So, for instance, Afilias delegates yitter.info to me, so in my zone there is an SOA record at yitter.info. What that means is that Afilias is no longer responsible for things that happen underneath yitter.info (because I have the authority -- that's what the SOA means).
This means that wherever there is a zone cut, there's also an end of the co-ordinator function (in a strict sense of controlling names). Afilias is responsible to co-ordinate everything under info _except_ below the stuff they delegated away (like yitter.info). Verisign is responsible to co-ordinate everything under com except below that which they delegated away (like anvilwalrusden.com). CIRA is responsible to co-ordinate everything under ca except below that which they delegated away (like crankycanuck.ca). And finally, ICANN is responsible to co-ordinate everything under the root zone (which is represented as ".") except below that which they delegated away (like com, net, org, info, ca, and so on).
Now, operators who delegate away parts of the name space can make rules about what conditions they impose for the delegation. CIRA, for instance, won't delegate anything in ca unless you're a Canadian citizen or are in Canada. (I happen to be a citizen, so I get to register and maintain crankycanuck.ca. I'm also cranky, but that was not a condition for my registration.) You might say that ICANN uses its consensus policies as this sort of condition.
So why, you might ask, isn't this all centrally co-ordinated? Well, because it makes things work better. The Internet is a massively distributed thing. It would be bureaucratic and inflexible if every time I wanted to add a new computer in anvilwalrusden.com I had to talk to ICANN or Verisign. But I don't need to talk to anybody, because the name space is delegated to me. That means I can operate my thing without anybody else being bothered. This make operation of the Internet simpler, cheaper, and faster than it otherwise would be. And I can even give a chunk of my namespace to someone else -- I could create shaveaukroasts.anvilwalrusden.com[1] and give it to a friend and colleague, and I wouldn't need to tell anyone in particular (though I'd still have to tell literally everyone, by putting it in the DNS).
This lack of central co-ordination is one reason the DNS has been so successful. I hope that explanation helps. If you have further questions about this, feel free to ask me more.
Best regards,
A
[1] anvilwalrusden is an anagram of "Andrew Sullivan". I will leave as an exercise for the reader the anagram of "shaveaukroasts".
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Andrew I sincerely appreciate your comprehensive and well described text. As you said various entities perform their related parts. Should there be a need to make ICANN responsible for an overall policy under which those individual entities coordinate the allocation and assignments of Names in the Domain Name System or not? Then pls kindly provide your final text Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Apr 2016, at 00:29, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi Kavouss,
I cut the cc: list down a little. Hope that's ok.
On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:51:13PM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: If ICANN does not coordinate the allocation and assignments of names in the domain name system then who does that? What is the situations today, who perform that task?
I tried to answer this in the chat today, but I was apparently unsuccessful. Let me try again here.
The answer is, "Nobody does that." There is no central co-ordination of allocation and assignment of names in the DNS. That is in fact the genius of the design of the DNS.
The DNS is possibly the most successful distributed database ever. It is distributed in two ways, which might be called data maintenance and data query operation. The "data query operation" is caching, which allows the DNS to perform very well; it's not relevant to our discussion. The "data maintenance", however, is fundamental to the model of the operation of the system, and is how DNS has managed to thrive.
At every dot in a domain name, it is possible to add a "zone cut": a place where a new operator can take over a piece of the domain name space. The process of making a zone cut is called "delegation", and it involved putting name server resource record(s) on the parent side and "apex" records -- the same name server resource record(s) plus a Start Of Authority (SOA) record -- on the child side. So, for instance, Afilias delegates yitter.info to me, so in my zone there is an SOA record at yitter.info. What that means is that Afilias is no longer responsible for things that happen underneath yitter.info (because I have the authority -- that's what the SOA means).
This means that wherever there is a zone cut, there's also an end of the co-ordinator function (in a strict sense of controlling names). Afilias is responsible to co-ordinate everything under info _except_ below the stuff they delegated away (like yitter.info). Verisign is responsible to co-ordinate everything under com except below that which they delegated away (like anvilwalrusden.com). CIRA is responsible to co-ordinate everything under ca except below that which they delegated away (like crankycanuck.ca). And finally, ICANN is responsible to co-ordinate everything under the root zone (which is represented as ".") except below that which they delegated away (like com, net, org, info, ca, and so on).
Now, operators who delegate away parts of the name space can make rules about what conditions they impose for the delegation. CIRA, for instance, won't delegate anything in ca unless you're a Canadian citizen or are in Canada. (I happen to be a citizen, so I get to register and maintain crankycanuck.ca. I'm also cranky, but that was not a condition for my registration.) You might say that ICANN uses its consensus policies as this sort of condition.
So why, you might ask, isn't this all centrally co-ordinated? Well, because it makes things work better. The Internet is a massively distributed thing. It would be bureaucratic and inflexible if every time I wanted to add a new computer in anvilwalrusden.com I had to talk to ICANN or Verisign. But I don't need to talk to anybody, because the name space is delegated to me. That means I can operate my thing without anybody else being bothered. This make operation of the Internet simpler, cheaper, and faster than it otherwise would be. And I can even give a chunk of my namespace to someone else -- I could create shaveaukroasts.anvilwalrusden.com[1] and give it to a friend and colleague, and I wouldn't need to tell anyone in particular (though I'd still have to tell literally everyone, by putting it in the DNS).
This lack of central co-ordination is one reason the DNS has been so successful. I hope that explanation helps. If you have further questions about this, feel free to ask me more.
Best regards,
A
[1] anvilwalrusden is an anagram of "Andrew Sullivan". I will leave as an exercise for the reader the anagram of "shaveaukroasts".
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Hi, On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 09:01:05AM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Should there be a need to make ICANN responsible for an overall policy under which those individual entities coordinate the allocation and assignments of Names in the Domain Name System or not?
Not only do I not think there should be a need, I don't think there should even be a desire. The DNS is designed not to have that single policy or any such sort of global rule. It would be contrary to the technical reality of the DNS to try to make such a rule. RFC 2181 points out quite clearly (even more clearly than RFC 1034 -- see 2181 section 11) that names in the DNS have only restrictions about length. People have already implemented things that depend on that lack of restriction. Mostly, those implementations have been out in the "leaf nodes", because the hierarchical nature of the DNS makes that the wisest place to do such things. (Compare this reasoning with the IAB's guidance on internationalized labels -- see RFC 6912.) Everything we have ever learned about operations on the Internet tells us that centralised authority doesn't work. There's no reason to suppose this case is any different. The DNS was designed to dispose of a point of centralisation in the Internet -- one that caused real operational problems. It would be a massive retrograde step to try to re-impose such administrative centralisation again. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Dear Andrew That was just a quarry and not suggestion Tks for your kind explanation again. Regards Kavouss 2016-04-18 15:13 GMT+02:00 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>:
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 09:01:05AM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Should there be a need to make ICANN responsible for an overall policy under which those individual entities coordinate the allocation and assignments of Names in the Domain Name System or not?
Not only do I not think there should be a need, I don't think there should even be a desire. The DNS is designed not to have that single policy or any such sort of global rule. It would be contrary to the technical reality of the DNS to try to make such a rule.
RFC 2181 points out quite clearly (even more clearly than RFC 1034 -- see 2181 section 11) that names in the DNS have only restrictions about length. People have already implemented things that depend on that lack of restriction. Mostly, those implementations have been out in the "leaf nodes", because the hierarchical nature of the DNS makes that the wisest place to do such things. (Compare this reasoning with the IAB's guidance on internationalized labels -- see RFC 6912.)
Everything we have ever learned about operations on the Internet tells us that centralised authority doesn't work. There's no reason to suppose this case is any different. The DNS was designed to dispose of a point of centralisation in the Internet -- one that caused real operational problems. It would be a massive retrograde step to try to re-impose such administrative centralisation again.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Dear Andrew Dear steve Once again I am grateful for your very detailed reply but I am still remained unconvinced that there is no coordinated actions on delegation of Name. I an surprised that people push to maintain such disintegrated spread activities Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Apr 2016, at 15:13, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 09:01:05AM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Should there be a need to make ICANN responsible for an overall policy under which those individual entities coordinate the allocation and assignments of Names in the Domain Name System or not?
Not only do I not think there should be a need, I don't think there should even be a desire. The DNS is designed not to have that single policy or any such sort of global rule. It would be contrary to the technical reality of the DNS to try to make such a rule.
RFC 2181 points out quite clearly (even more clearly than RFC 1034 -- see 2181 section 11) that names in the DNS have only restrictions about length. People have already implemented things that depend on that lack of restriction. Mostly, those implementations have been out in the "leaf nodes", because the hierarchical nature of the DNS makes that the wisest place to do such things. (Compare this reasoning with the IAB's guidance on internationalized labels -- see RFC 6912.)
Everything we have ever learned about operations on the Internet tells us that centralised authority doesn't work. There's no reason to suppose this case is any different. The DNS was designed to dispose of a point of centralisation in the Internet -- one that caused real operational problems. It would be a massive retrograde step to try to re-impose such administrative centralisation again.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
I don’t want to seem blunt but this it literally the core concept of how the internet was designed. Whatever we can say about the CCWG exceeding its remit in other areas I certainly don’t think we can start questioning core principles of how the internet is designed. -James On 19/04/2016, 7:08 a.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Andrew Dear steve Once again I am grateful for your very detailed reply but I am still remained unconvinced that there is no coordinated actions on delegation of Name. I an surprised that people push to maintain such disintegrated spread activities Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Apr 2016, at 15:13, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 09:01:05AM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Should there be a need to make ICANN responsible for an overall policy under which those individual entities coordinate the allocation and assignments of Names in the Domain Name System or not?
Not only do I not think there should be a need, I don't think there should even be a desire. The DNS is designed not to have that single policy or any such sort of global rule. It would be contrary to the technical reality of the DNS to try to make such a rule.
RFC 2181 points out quite clearly (even more clearly than RFC 1034 -- see 2181 section 11) that names in the DNS have only restrictions about length. People have already implemented things that depend on that lack of restriction. Mostly, those implementations have been out in the "leaf nodes", because the hierarchical nature of the DNS makes that the wisest place to do such things. (Compare this reasoning with the IAB's guidance on internationalized labels -- see RFC 6912.)
Everything we have ever learned about operations on the Internet tells us that centralised authority doesn't work. There's no reason to suppose this case is any different. The DNS was designed to dispose of a point of centralisation in the Internet -- one that caused real operational problems. It would be a massive retrograde step to try to re-impose such administrative centralisation again.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
In addition, ICANN has NO mandate WHATSOEVER with regards to ccTLD managers. el On 2016-04-19 09:01, James Gannon wrote:
I don’t want to seem blunt but this it literally the core concept of how the internet was designed.
Whatever we can say about the CCWG exceeding its remit in other areas I certainly don’t think we can start questioning core principles of how the internet is designed.
-James
On 19/04/2016, 7:08 a.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Andrew Dear steve Once again I am grateful for your very detailed reply but I am still remained unconvinced that there is no coordinated actions on delegation of Name. I an surprised that people push to maintain such disintegrated spread activities Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Apr 2016, at 15:13, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 09:01:05AM +0200, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Should there be a need to make ICANN responsible for an overall policy under which those individual entities coordinate the allocation and assignments of Names in the Domain Name System or not?
Not only do I not think there should be a need, I don't think there should even be a desire. The DNS is designed not to have that single policy or any such sort of global rule. It would be contrary to the technical reality of the DNS to try to make such a rule.
RFC 2181 points out quite clearly (even more clearly than RFC 1034 -- see 2181 section 11) that names in the DNS have only restrictions about length. People have already implemented things that depend on that lack of restriction. Mostly, those implementations have been out in the "leaf nodes", because the hierarchical nature of the DNS makes that the wisest place to do such things. (Compare this reasoning with the IAB's guidance on internationalized labels -- see RFC 6912.)
Everything we have ever learned about operations on the Internet tells us that centralised authority doesn't work. There's no reason to suppose this case is any different. The DNS was designed to dispose of a point of centralisation in the Internet -- one that caused real operational problems. It would be a massive retrograde step to try to re-impose such administrative centralisation again.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
On 19/04/2016 07:08, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Andrew Dear steve Once again I am grateful for your very detailed reply but I am still remained unconvinced that there is no coordinated actions on delegation of Name. I an surprised that people push to maintain such disintegrated spread activities Regards Kavouss
Dear Kavouss, I am not surprised. I believe the distributed nature of the DNS, which Andrew has explained brilliantly, is widely recognised as both fundamental to its design and as essential to its success as one of the Internet's main addressing systems [*]. Moreover, this group was charged with proposing improvements to ICANN's accountability to the community it serves according to its mission and values, not with proposing means to increase the accountability of DNS delegation holders to ICANN. I would therefore have regarded any proposal to change DNS into a more centralised design as beyond the mandate of this group, even if brought forward at the designated time. At this stage in proceedings, when we are simply ensuring that the draft bylaws match the proposals we have made and that Chartering Organisations have approved, it would surely be out of order to introduce any such novelty. Kind Regards, Malcolm. [*] To our technical colleagues: I call the DNS one of the Internet's addressing systems with studied deliberation, acknowledging the likely challenges (I have understood Andrew's explanation) and looking forward to defending my terminology if needed. But perhaps such a discussion, if you wish to have it, would be better conducted off list, or maybe in a bar in Helsinki. Best wishes, M.
DNS is not disintegrated but loosely integrated with technical protocols and operation policies. Can you brief us what coordinated action you expect ICANN to have. What’s the problem if there is not such coordination action. I think that will help us to make it more clear. -Davey
在 2016年4月19日，14:08，Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> 写道：
Dear Andrew Dear steve Once again I am grateful for your very detailed reply but I am still remained unconvinced that there is no coordinated actions on delegation of Name. I an surprised that people push to maintain such disintegrated spread activities
--------------------------- Davey Song(宋林健) BII Lab ljsong@biigroup.cn
As interesting as this may be, I am not sure where this fits into WOrk Stream 2. Can someone please enlighten me? el On 2016-04-19 10:28, "Davey(宋林健)" wrote:
DNS is not disintegrated but loosely integrated with technical protocols and operation policies. Can you brief us what coordinated action you expect ICANN to have. What’s the problem if there is not such coordination action. I think that will help us to make it more clear.
-Davey
在 2016年4月19日，14:08，Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> 写道：
Dear Andrew Dear steve Once again I am grateful for your very detailed reply but I am still remained unconvinced that there is no coordinated actions on delegation of Name. I an surprised that people push to maintain such disintegrated spread activities
--------------------------- Davey Song(宋林健) BII Lab ljsong@biigroup.cn [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Dear Davey Tks for message I just want to remove the loose Disintegration in order to inject some sort of monitoring to detect any departure arises from leaving the issue to different entities to do the job according to their wishes Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Apr 2016, at 11:28, Davey(宋林健) <ljsong@biigroup.cn> wrote:
DNS is not disintegrated but loosely integrated with technical protocols and operation policies. Can you brief us what coordinated action you expect ICANN to have. What’s the problem if there is not such coordination action. I think that will help us to make it more clear.
-Davey
在 2016年4月19日，14:08，Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> 写道：
Dear Andrew Dear steve Once again I am grateful for your very detailed reply but I am still remained unconvinced that there is no coordinated actions on delegation of Name. I an surprised that people push to maintain such disintegrated spread activities
--------------------------- Davey Song(宋林健) BII Lab ljsong@biigroup.cn
participants (8)
-
"Davey(宋林健)" -
Andrew Sullivan -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
James Gannon -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Malcolm Hutty -
Seun Ojedeji -
Steve Crocker