(Portions of post elided, in the name of brevity.)
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?
....
What exactly was the motivation for such a document if not political,
especially given the timing?
Of course we were aware of such efforts -- that's precisely why we
wrote the document, to warn that they were bad ideas. And the fact
that the Internet "has not come crashing down upon anyones head" is due
to their very limited deployment. The Internet is quite large; local
disruptions *usually* don't affect most of the net.
...
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.)
If our statement has advocated "command and control" as opposed to
consensus-based design of the root, it would indeed have been a
political statement. But it didn't say that. It said that there needs
to be one root, regardless of how that is chosen. The notion that "the
various operators act as they best see fit" is precisely the kind of
thing we want to discourage, since that leads towards inconsistency.
--Steve Bellovin, error
That is based on the assumption that consistency is necessary
or desireable 
Of course, it is dear to an engineer's mind,
but the case from the sociological point of view is far from
clear-cut. In fact, way too many woes of human societies can
be (at least indirectly) attributed to the misguided attempts
to enforce consistency.
--vadim
On or around Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 12:56:07PM -0800, Vadim Antonov may have written:
That is based on the assumption that consistency is necessary
or desireable 
Of course, it is dear to an engineer's mind,
but the case from the sociological point of view is far from
clear-cut. In fact, way too many woes of human societies can
be (at least indirectly) attributed to the misguided attempts
to enforce consistency.
--vadim
it's a good thing we're network operators and not sociologists then.
This assumption is explicitly addressed in the RFC - I quote:
>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?
>
....
>
>What exactly was the motivation for such a document if not political,
>especially given the timing?
Of course we were aware of such efforts -- that's precisely why we
wrote the document, to warn that they were bad ideas.
These efforts had been going on for *years* before this document was
inked, with actors like Kaspureff(sp?) et. al. You'll forgive me if I find
the timing of this document somewhat coincidental with the timing of the
process that has left us with ICANN.
And the fact that the Internet "has not come crashing down upon anyones
head" is due to their very limited deployment. The Internet is quite
large; local disruptions *usually* don't affect most of the net.
Disruption? What disruption? People making a concious decision where to
point resolution to is "disruptive?"
>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.)
If our statement has advocated "command and control" as opposed to
consensus-based design of the root, it would indeed have been a
political statement. But it didn't say that.
From RFC2826:
"...That one root must be supported by a set of coordinated root servers
administered by a unique naming authority."
This statement in the context of the timing, pretty much sums up the
issue.
Of course, one may choose to treat RFC as a gospel, but to
me (and i hope to anyone interested in how cognition works
to the point of actually getting acquainted with the relevant
research) the attached passage sounds quite like a bunch of
random noise Mostly because it assumes that human-to-human
communication is a reasoned process, concerned with consistent
intepretation. In fact, most of what makes, for example, art
interesting is that it does not have a singular, well defined
interpretation.
--vadim
PS This one, i guess, is brought to you by the Society Against
De-Humanization Of Internet Users
<tongue firmly in cheek>
PPS Yes, I think any form which _restricts_ potential models of
communication is bad. Such as forcing communications to be
moderated by a singular hierarchical structure. This whole
thread won't be there in the first place if the scheme actually
worked well in the real world. Hierarchies do not scale and
cannot adequately tolerate internalized adversity.