[CCWG-ACCT] DNS

[Kavouss Arasteh]

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 at 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 at anvilwalrusden.com