Statements against new.net?

Tue Mar 13 19:29:23 UTC 2001

On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:

> >> RFC 2826 IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root
> >
> >It would better be termed "IAB Political Comment on the Unique DNS Root."
> >
> As someone who was on the IAB at the time that RFC was written, I 
> disagree -- there were *no* political discussions.  But that's an 
> unverifiable assertion.  Instead, could you point at anything in the 
> document you perceive as "political" rather than technical? 

The fact that there currently exists several different operations root
server networks(ORSC, Pacific Root, Name.Space) to name a few. In fact,
if you ask ICANN board member Karl Auerbach, he'll tell you he uses the ORSC 
root servers.

To be clear I am not arguing the merits of any of these particular
efforts, but simply that they exist, are operational, and as of yet the
"Internet" has not come crashing down upon anyones head. 

Were you not aware of the existence of one or more such organizations when
the IAB formulated this document?

Please understand that I am not accusing you personally of playing
politics, as I don't know you or what motivates you, however it appears
that given the preexistence and continuing operation of alternative
root server networks, and the timing of this document(in the midst of the
formation of ICANN and associated uncertainty surrounding the legacy 
structures(IANA, the root server operators, etc.)) that the document
itself was political in nature. 

What exactly was the motivation for such a document if not political, 
especially given the timing? 

> To be precise, what is your response to this, the second paragraph of the 
> document?
> 
>    Put simply, deploying multiple public DNS roots would raise a very
>    strong possibility that users of different ISPs who click on the same
>    link on a web page could end up at different destinations, against
>    the will of the web page designers.

First, I didn't know that Internet address resolution was subject to the
will of "web page designers."

Second, the alternative root server operators have attempted to address
this issue through communication/negotiation, like responsible members of
any community would. My understanding through following the various
mailing lists is that the majority of conflicts have been resolved in this
fashion. Where there is a refusal to communicate, or where conflict still
remains, the various operators act as they best see fit. I understand that
a community-based approach to "claim-staking"/conflict resolution makes
the "command and control" crowd a bit uncomfortable(witness some of the
virulant posters on the subject of new.net, et al.,) but this does nothing
to change the fact that these alternative root server networks exist and
that the Internet still works, mostly(as I'm sure you'd agree it's always
a little broken.) 