Subject: RE: Multinational Internet or Balkanization?

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 14:39:56 -0800

> From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]] 

> Dear Phillip,
> Full agreement. Let not confuse alt-roots and open-roots. 

I was not suggesting confusing them, I was suggesting ignoring them.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 14:46:42 -0800 (PST)

> I was not suggesting confusing them, I was suggesting ignoring them.

Ignore China?

I know some do it with their email, but on the large-scale of global
infrastructure and business relationships, I do not think it would work.

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[email-masked]

---

From: "Mohsen BANAN" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:18:36 -0800

>>>>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 14:46:42 -0800 (PST), "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]> said:

  >> I was not suggesting confusing them, I was suggesting ignoring them.

  William> Ignore China?

  William> I know some do it with their email, but on the large-scale of global
  William> infrastructure and business relationships, I do not think it would work.

Ignore the world and the world will ignore you.

Of course, many here will continue to go on and
just ignore reality.

Today's announcement is just a beginning.

Shortly after this note, I'll follow up with how
this perceived threat may be viewed as an
opportunity.

-- Mohsen BANAN

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:44:03 +0100

...
> Ignore China?

No, that would be foolish.

We automatically ignore any pseudo-TLD that only exists within
a walled garden, because it is simply invisible outside.
It isn't part of the global Internet. If it appears in any
way outside the walled garden, it is meaningless.

I think there are a number of examples of this already.

IMHO, what we *should* do is think about how the related
requirement can be properly defined and how it can be
satisfied in the global Internet.

    Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:44:03 +0100

...

    Brian

---

From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 09:06:27 -0500

> No, that would be foolish.

It is foolish.

> way outside the walled garden, it is meaningless.

This is why it is so foolish:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/05/dud_queries_swamp_us_internet/

As you can see the wall which the existing root system has drawn around 
the alternative or open public roots has resulted in technical 
difficulties for the IANA root.  The same issues have applied to the 
chinese root as it has become popular.  As you can see living in a 
walled garden don't work.

regards
joe

---

From: shogunx <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 11:59:25 -0500 (EST)

I agree here, Brian.  Interoperabilty must be maintained.  The issue is,
will China agree?

> satisfied in the global Internet.

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:11:38 +0100

Dear Brian,
I am afraid you do not grasp yet what it represents for the Internet 
architecture.
http://www.circleid.com/posts/chinas_new_domain_names_lost_in_translation

At 11:44 02/03/2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:...
>a walled garden, because it is simply invisible outside.

The walled garden concept does not apply here. This an open garden, 
but only because the IETF technology has not documented the 
appropriate walls. It is either to evaluate that they are not 
necessary under certain conditions or to offer a walling fitting the need.

>satisfied in the global Internet.

Correct. But this SHOULD stands for 20 years. The ICANN ICP-3 
document explicitly asked for experimentation in that area (using a 
John Klensin's class oriented suggestion which cannot scale, but goes 
in the proper direction).

Architecture-discuss, RFC 3066 Bis saga, reactions to the Chinese 
case confirm the IETF is not ready for this yet. The way IETF works 
well is in maintaining, not in innovating (it can then be used 
obliging to protect the world from its errore, all the more when in 
affects IANA). What China timely publishes today is a basic feature 
of the International Network: externets. I suggest we leave the 
concept mature as a grassroots effort. Just refraining from hurting 
it. When the result has been experimented, like for other system, the 
IAB will be able to stabilise it and the IETF to maintain it.
jfc