IDN Forums - Internationalized Domain Names  
Home | Advertise on idnforums | Premium Membership

Go Back   IDN Forums - Internationalized Domain Names > IDN Discussions > General Discussion

General Discussion Feel free to talk about anything and everything in this board.

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 24th July 2011, 02:19 PM
555 555 is offline
ком.ком コム.コム
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,141
iTrader: (33)
Rep Power: 1701
555 has disabled reputation
IDN VIP Discussions: "Single authoritative root"

(Got it via email so no source link i found)

Timothe Litt wrote:
>Like driving, a network presence, including a domain name, is a
>privilege and not an absolute right.

Who decided that? Milton has addressed that point.
However, Milton reintroduces the point when he states: " Instead we
put limits on who can access this database (the police, LEAs) and the
uses to which the data can be put." Who is "we". There is a single
authority: the zone manager, there is only one law: the national law
of the zone manager. There is only one rule to respect: the most
stringent sovereign privacy rule, worldwide - otherwise there is not
world of right.

Now, let me clarify.
There is no right or privilege in Internet use, there are facts.
Rights and privileges may only concern Internet usages and people's
Internet related behaviours and be enforced by governance regalian entities.

The Internet is a technical consensus
It works the way its programs are written. Programs are written to
work. To obtain it, developers consider RFCs in the OSI layers 1 to
7; and listen to the users (the "market") otherwise. This is why the
Internet constitution is in the code, not in the ICANN community.
ICANN is the leader of one of the communities populating the Internet
community, which is actually a community of communities.

In the sole naming area, the Internet community has :
- one single rule which is the DNS that provide information enough
(mail, nameserver, registry, zone manager) to be maintained.
- at least seven sub-communities that technology MUST support:

1. ICANN full-rate gTLDs, the mailing list should
discuss the technical requirements.
2. ICANN JAS-rated. There is no indication yet about their possible
technical difference with the above.
3. open source gTLDs.
4. government created gTLD, e.g. China.
5. ISO 3166/MA decided ccTLDs.
6. industrial community (GSMA, Google, etc.) to support their own
root. Who knows about .gsm?
7. non-Internet limited emergent IUse community and IUI (Intelligent
Use Interface) related worked-on technologies. IDNA2008 exemplified
how RFCs fully support it.

ICANN has documented this situation.
That was through its 2001 ICP-3,
that states: "In an ever-evolving Internet, ultimately there may be
better architectures for getting the job done where the need for a
single, authoritative root will not be an issue. But that is not the
case today. And the transition to such an architecture, should it
emerge, would require community-based approaches. In the interim,
responsible experimentation should be encouraged".

In 2011, in approving the gTLDs system,
ICANN has acknowledged that what was not the case in 2001 is in fact
the case today. The single, authoritative root is not a limited file
anymore that is disseminated by the root server system. ICANN tends
to present it as an open file while IUI sees it as a virtual matrix
with millions of dimensions. IUI responds to the WSIS demand for a
people centered society and inherits from a community experience that
was acquired along the ICP-3 rules ("dot-root" project): everyone
runs and creates his/her own needed part of a root that is not
limited to names of the sole Internet. This results from a third
principle in the Internet architecture (RFC 1958: permanent change;
RFC 3439: simplicity) the principle of subsidiarity that IDNA2008 exemplifies.

IDNA2008 was a positive surprise.
The IDNA2008 positive surprise was that subsidiarity is built-in the
Internet architecture from the very begining. There is not a single
bit to change. However, what has not been done yet is to document the
transition to get rid of the unnecessary added-complexity that has
accumulated over the decades and to welcome the permitted innovation.
This is the challenge: to simultaneously support and test opposed
transitions like ICANN and IUse (and what is in between) without
confusing either of them. This is why both of them have engaged in an
analysis and documentation efforts and should try to cooperate (e.g.

This is why we need a consensual cooperation.
However, this cooperation is to be engaged in a technically and
politically confused context due to the complementary charters of
IETF and of the UNICODE Consortium, and to the discrepancies between
the GAC and the WSIS objectives.

1. Clarification was obtained last year from IESG and IAB through my
appeal over the IESG misrepresentation of the importance of IDNA2008.
I could summarize it as: the IUI is an interface between the Internet
(and alternate network technologies) and the external world. IETF is
competent and interested in what belongs to or impacts the Internet
but does not want to engage outside of the Internet area.

2. A clarification should be found with UNICODE through the
"stringprep" replacement. IDNA2003 used "stringprep" to interface
UNICODE to punycode entries. Stringprep is used by other IETF
protocols but turns obsolete, since IDNA2008 does not use it anymore,
freeing IDNA from Unicode versioning. The IETF (WG/PRECIS) tries to
work out a solution. For good reasons that have endangered the
IDNA2008 consensus, IUsers have a different vision of Unicode
deliverables, and would like to consider starting at a deeper point
of simplicity.

IDNA2008 has protected IDNA from Unicode versioning.
IUsers would like the IUI to protect them from Unicode and to void
the need for stringprep in considering a no-phishing network protocol
oriented scripting based on the visual aspects of the characters
symbols in an unique common fount. This would remove the Unicode
consortium from the network multilingualization loop and ease the
naming adminance (long-term netkeeping, as opposed to medium-term
governance and short-term operance).

Two systems are actually of no real technical and operational use in
well organized and secure DNS operations:
- the root server system that answers 96% of erroneous requests and
data everyone already has.
- the WHOIS is system that violates the privacy law of most of the
countries having one - and is a source for spaming, spoofing, etc.

In addition, one system will become local and needs to get reviewed
now ICANN has started selling $ 185.000 + expenses what everyone can
deploy for free and get used by billions (reasonably within less than
five years due to existing RFCs, word of the mouth, testing, new
products and services being supported) or Google can deploy in minutes.
That system is the ICANN whole technico-legal system itself.

This means that the priority is to correctly insert that ICANN system
into the foreseeable future development of the world digital ecosystem (WDE).
This is to protect stable operations and usage by its customers. This
cannot be done by rules or agreements (you cannot negotiate with
billions of individuals). It can only be done through:
- a stable, secure, simple, innovative technology these individuals
will want to use for free as a "Plus" to the Internet they are used
to utilize everyday. For many reasons IAB started to document
IDNinApplication and xNAMES in the DNS as we consider them today are
inadequate. However, a reponse MUST be found.
- and support services they will competitively adopt. I doubt the
WHOIS is going to be a major part of such services: because it does
not propose anything to the advantage of the registrant. Ths WHOIS
only was a Jon Postel's tool to manage "his" network with people
moving around every academic year. A dinosaur.

What actually IDNA2008 says is: here the way for DNS oriented
concerns to interface the Internet DNS. The rest is to be entirely
reviewed accordingly.



Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 24th July 2011, 05:42 PM
Drewbert's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,091
iTrader: (20)
Rep Power: 0
Drewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgyDrewbert is a tad dodgy
Re: IDN VIP Discussions: "Single authoritative root"

JFC = JFC Morfin <>
It's all jaded style to me.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 24th July 2011, 07:34 PM
555 555 is offline
ком.ком コム.コム
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,141
iTrader: (33)
Rep Power: 1701
555 has disabled reputation
Re: IDN VIP Discussions: "Single authoritative root"

Originally Posted by Drewbert View Post
JFC = JFC Morfin <>
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 24th July 2011, 07:54 PM
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 7,864
iTrader: (60)
Rep Power: 2222
bwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enough
Re: IDN VIP Discussions: "Single authoritative root"

Originally Posted by 555 View Post
Did you notice this quote from Gandhi on his homepage at bottom....

""First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win!" Gandhi."

Here is his 'bio" from his website:

servicing the international digital ecosystem development

The deployment of the international digital ecosystem is granular. It results from two seemingly opposing logics. One is the concatenation into a single homogenous continuity. The other is the constantly renewed partition of this continuity into various national, cultural, lingual, local, economical, professional, community, private, etc. etc. relational spaces.

Both of these logics require:

identity: without appropriate, common technical simplification, concatenation is at risk of being blocked by complexity and partition can result in balkanisation. Identity addresses the purpose of the digital networks: to support human exchanges; to assist computer productivity in a clearly identified and protected framework.

universality: there must be an organised global service continuity supporting equal access and opportunity of usage whatever the point of access, technology, language, applications, services to the relation, etc.

subsidiarity: this means that every real and virtual network governance entity will respect the duties of the others, towards their own constituents, while their common intergovernance will strive to assist their independence as much as is required and no more than is required.
The hysteresis of the joint evolution of their technical, societal, economical and political aspects is important: it means that progress will usually result from the common acceptance of small visionary changes, often introduced decades beforehand. Furthermore, those failures might be the perverse effects of decisions taken, or imposed, for reasons long-forgotten when they finally, hit the world community.

An independent applied researcher and a project investor, JFC Morfin was involved at a very early stage in the history and in the governance of the international network. He was able to explore the seeds of its evolution well in advance. He wants to catalyse this evolution, in synergy with the governmental administrations, members of SSDOs, international associations, private concerns, etc. which he relates to or is associated with.

Moreover, he is able to do so because he is being concerned by a common global interest: which he identifies with a sustainable, multilateral and equal opportunity development.

He feels that this can only result from a multilingual, granular, user-centric architecture. This architecture will be able to support sovereign national, cultural, lingual, community, local, private governances. It will be perceived by the users, together with their own standalone network/home network (SNHN), as a sure, secure, private, and intelligent continuity of extended services to their interrelations. The prototype of such an evolution towards a multilateral and interoperable concerted technological consensus is the Multilingual Internet where he is active.

JFC Morfin is engaged in the development of such an architecture, and in the active defence of the interests of its the network users. If you speak French or can survive his Franglish, you are welcome to contact him by mail: jefsey at


Last edited by bwhhisc; 24th July 2011 at 07:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 25th July 2011, 12:54 AM
domainguru's Avatar
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,835
iTrader: (14)
Rep Power: 2537
domainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura about
Re: IDN VIP Discussions: "Single authoritative root"

I think he's the main French guy that was on the IDNA2008 list. He just went on forever and ever about the same things ........... ignore him, everyone on the list did.
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:50 PM.

Site Sponsors
Your ad here
buy t-shirt
מחיר הזהב

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0
Copyright 2005

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54