ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Keith Teare's Iconoclastic Take on the SiteFinder Report | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 21 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Crocker's View of .NET Architecture is Very Dated
    by Anonymous on Monday July 26 2004, @03:26AM (#14032)
    Crocker's View of .NET Architecture is Very Dated

    Crocker goes all the way back to RFC-1. Back in
    those days, an RFC could be a one page memo
    circulated to the insiders for comments. The .NET has changed, many of the good old boys have
    NOT evolved. They are stuck in time.

    As one example, Crocker goes thru the myth that
    the telephone system is different from the
    Internet. Telephones at the edges have evolved,
    they have become smarter. Small PBXs have also
    evolved. Digital switches at the core, have
    become much more compact, than old relay racks.

    Crocker claims that ICANN supports innovation
    and claims that it took "years" for changes in
    the telco world. How many "years" has it taken
    for ICANN to approve a simple, 5-minute, TLD
    addition in a root server? [which sits at the
    edge by-the-way, NOT in the core, where Crocker
    wants to claim it is located].

    From the ICANN meeting, Crocker says:
    "you touch on two very important things that are a bit different from each other. one is this lightning rod of the word "innovation." we are, as much as anybody, very strongly in favor of innovation. we are also in favor of stability and enabling others to innovate. these things are too broad and general as terms to be taken in the absolute and without context. the internet is built very strongly on the notion of putting as little as possible into the core. quite the opposite, say, of the classic telephone system, where in order to make a change and bring out a new service, you had to make a rather massive change in the telephone switches that in the u.s., AT&T used to have the monopoly, and it took years and years and years before any change could be put in."

    If Crocker followed his own notion of putting
    "as little as possible into the core", then he
    would see that the Internet has evolved in
    three major phases, but did not start in that
    manner. In the first phases, there were large
    centralized nodes (mostly at selected academic
    and government locations). In the second phase,
    a rag-tag group of "ISPs" grew out of the mostly
    disconnected BBS-operator crowd. They helped to
    de-centralize the original Internet. In the
    third phase, which is just emerging, we finally
    see the less-is-more-in-the-core approach
    because the large centralized telcos are able
    to create huge efficient clouds which are viewed
    as transparent transports for packets, as
    opposed to a collection of hop-by-hop nodes,
    which Crocker no doubt assumes is the only way
    the Internet can be viewed.

    In this third phase, a large carrier has no real
    need to expose any of the details of the transport.
    Packets go in one side and out the other. A
    radical approach would be to not even decrement
    the TTL field as they cross that cloud, let the
    edges sort out if a packet disappears because it
    lives too long moving around nodes at the edges.
    With this evolution (not really revolution) the
    large carrier cloud looks similar to a frame-relay
    cloud. Non-carrier components are added at the
    edges. ICANN is NOT a carrier, and NOT a
    carrier-regulator. ICANN is at the edge, just
    like everyone else.

    In this third phase, the core Internet transport
    starts to look a lot like a large, virtual,
    telco switch. It is capital-intensive equipment
    deployed to serve many users at the edges, who
    help pay their share, for the central transport,
    in very small amounts. Central beuracracies, like
    ICANN, attempt to limit the innovation, the
    people, and the companies [at the edges] can add.
    ICANN does not follow the "Internet Model" that
    their experts claim to follow.

    As with everything-ICANN, the rules are always
    for the peasants and the peons, for the outsiders.
    The rules do not apply to the insiders. They
    place themselves in the core. They of course
    always set up their toll booths in the core to
    collect their fees. They also secretly cozy up
    to governments and law enforcement while telling
    everyone they eschew government involvement in
    their closed little society. Note Crocker's
    comments about "Homeland Security" providing
    his funding:

    "there's funding coming from the u.s. department of homeland security and we're in discussions with other governments. russ mundy and i and folks at national institutes of science and technology are heavily involved on the u.s. side along with a host of other players, suzanne wolfe and others are involved. in europe, there's very active and longstanding leadership in sweden and in amsterdam and other places. and a series of steering groups being formed."

    The U.S. Government is easily duped by these
    groups that wheel around academics and policy
    wonks and never question whether their skills
    and knowledge are up-to-date. Fortunately, the
    open and free marketplace with MORE educated
    people than those that rally at ICANN fests
    is able to move forward without U.S. Government
    support and funding. The weak like Towmey and
    Cerf, have relied on governments all of their
    lives to back their regimes. It should not be
    a surprise that the weak and largely useless
    ccTLDs would now be their focal point for
    regulation.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]


    Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com