Net4D
New classes to bind people and machines

Presentation at the
Second Internet Governance Forum meeting
12 November 2007, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Revised 24 Jan. 2008



Workshop
on Interoperable multilingual directories and
solutions provided by the semantic web
13H - 14H30, Alhambra II ( IGF Schedule )





PLAN






INTRODUCTION

    Most governance conflicts do arise when :
  • 1) related to a critical ressource, no alternative been seen
  • 2) no alternative is envisionned, because of a wrong assessment of the power structure
  • Results are classical conflicts concerning a classical resssource that cannot be shared, without creating a deprivation to one stakeholder. ( eg. food : bread, natural ressources : oil, etc...) and often leading to armed conflicts.
  • the law of Cyberspace are different, it is possible to share without creating deprivations, it is therefore possible to explore creative solutions to avoid conflicts.... and within a peaceful enviromment, it is possible to make scientific, cultural, technical and economic progresses.






ASSESSMENT of the POWER STRUCTURE

  • The spotlight has been only the control of DNS root databases
  • Left in the dark : The software tools to access the DNS databases
  • The actual subnetwork of DNS servers is neither owned nor under contract with ICANN, the DNS servers are voluntarily maintained by users ( mostly ISPs, web hosting companies, some registrars,... ).
  • almost all machines in this subnetwork are running the free software ( FreeBSD licence ) called rather aptly BIND which is maintained by the Internet Systems Consortium (ISC).
  • BIND 9 is striving for a strict compliance with IETF standards, ie, with the Request for Comments (RFCs) established by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) , but this is not yet fully achieved.
  • There are few other available DNS server software ( see a Comparison on Wikipedia ) but most often they follow BIND features.







ASSESSMENT of the POWER STRUCTURE (II)

The ISC T-shirt is rather amusing :






ASSESSMENT of the POWER STRUCTURE (III)



Therefore concerning the Internet DNS,
there are two governance "executive" bodies :
  1. ICANN, de jure, concerning the root databases
  2. ISC, de facto, concerning the software that accesses those databases

While the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) plays the role of a "legislative" body for both, with its RFCs.








BIND, as a PUBLIC RESSOURCE


In fact, it is very fortunate that BIND allows to carry different resolving services related to different classes of network.

2.1.3 Resource Records : The data associated with domain names are contained in resource records, or RRs. Records are divided into classes, each of which pertains to a type of network or software. Currently, there are classes for internets (any TCP/IP-based internet), networks based on the Chaosnet protocols, and networks that use Hesiod software. (Chaosnet is an old network of largely historic significance.) The internet class is by far the most popular. (We're not really sure if anyone still uses the Chaosnet class, and use of the Hesiod class is mostly confined to MIT.)

This possibility has been moslty ignored except for the proposal made by John C Klensin for a new class that is not limited to ASCII from its initial definitions. This would have allowed to a cleaner Internationalized Domain Name system, instead of relying on the patch that constitutes Punycode. However, the seamless implementation of such a two class system, where records of a new class are used as remedies to the shortcomings of the class "IN" would have created technical difficulties. These problems should not occur when starting with only one class, conceived from the onset for internationalisation.






Now it is interesting to mention the RFC 2929 

CLASS is a two octet unsigned integer containing one of the RR CLASS
   codes.  See section 3.2.

DNS CLASSes have been little used but constitute another dimension of
   the DNS distributed database.  In particular, there is no necessary
   relationship between the name space or root servers for one CLASS and
   those for another CLASS.  The same name can have completely different
   meanings in different CLASSes although the label types are the same
   and the null label is usable only as root in every CLASS.  However,
   as global networking and DNS have evolved, the IN, or Internet, CLASS
   has dominated DNS use.

   There are two subcategories of DNS CLASSes: normal data containing
   classes and QCLASSes that are only meaningful in queries or updates.

   The current CLASS assignments and considerations for future
   assignments are as follows:

   Decimal Hexadecimal
     0      0x0000 - assignment requires an IETF Standards Action.
     1      0x0001 - Internet (IN).
     2      0x0002 - available for assignment by IETF Consensus as a data CLASS.
     3      0x0003 - Chaos (CH) [Moon 1981].
     4      0x0004 - Hesiod (HS) [Dyer 1987].

     5 - 127    0x0005 - 0x007F - available for assignment by IETF Consensus as data
          CLASSes only.

     128 - 253  0x0080 - 0x00FD - available for assignment by IETF Consensus as
          QCLASSes only.

     254  0x00FE - QCLASS None [RFC 2136].
     255  0x00FF - QCLASS Any [RFC 1035].
     256 - 32767    0x0100 - 0x7FFF - assigned by IETF Consensus.

     32768 - 65280    0x8000 - 0xFEFF - assigned based on Specification Required as defined
	  in [RFC 2434].

     65280 - 65534    0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use.
     65535  0xFFFF - can only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action.

This leaves the possibility of 216= 65536 - 5 ( taken by the IN, CH, HS, None, Any classes ) = 65531 classes ( among which 255 for private use ) that could be used to carry other DNS services, using BIND.







ICANN cannot, in good faith, object to the use of yet another class, since ICANN recommended in May 2001 this approach :

Moreover, it should be noted that the original design of the DNS provides a facility for future extensions that accommodates the possibility of safely deploying multiple roots on the public Internet for experimental and other purposes. As noted in RFC 1034, the DNS includes a "class" tag on each resource record, which allows resource records of different classes to be distinguished even though they are commingled on the public Internet. For resource records within the standard root-server system, this class tag is set to "IN"; other values have been standardized for particular uses, including 255 possible values designated for "private use" that are particularly suited to experimentation.
As described in a recent proposal within the IETF, this "class" facility allows an alternative DNS namespace to be operated from different root servers in a manner that does not interfere with the stable operation of the existing authoritative root-server system. Those that have deployed alternative roots have not used a different class designation, however, choosing instead to have their resource records masquerade as emanating from the standard root, and creating the potential for disruption of other's operations.

Another view it is that the actual subnetwork of DNS servers ( in fact a P2P network, before the term was coined ) should be able carry several DNS systems, in other words to "degroup" the "lines" of this "commoun carrier" to introduce "competition".






Net4D, networks to empower
the second generation of the Web: the Semantic Web

  • Net4D are another classes of Network, like Hesiod and Chaosnet, ICANN has no jurisdiction on this network, only on the class "IN".
  • There could be other classes in competition with the ICANN IN class and the NET4D classes. Fair and ethical competition is welcome.
  • Net4D classes are not designed to provide similar minimal services as ICANN, it has in mind to provide value added services, in view to empower the Semantic Web.
  • Net4D domain holders should abide by a specific ontology, as a contractual requirement to the effect of :
  • Establishing pollution free zone concerning metadata, and providing pathway for the interoperability of metadata concerning specific activities following the Semantic Web approach.
  • Providing a Open Digital Ressource Identifier system that is clearly needed for future evolution of the Web and to authenticate metadata
  • Providing a Open Digital Ressource Identifier (ODRI) that is P2P friendly, that is facilitating a maximal flow via P2P, therefore allowing sites with little bandwith to exchange vast amount of data.





Empowering the Semantic Web


Net4D are classes of Next Generation Domain Services that are empowering the Semantic Web.
Two main networks/services are for the moment being considered :
  • Web4D: The Network of People
  • Epc4D : The Network of Things

    Web4D: The Network of people. As an example of gTLDs with Web4D : the and Language related semantic extension or Linguistic SWgTLDs or LSWgTLDs. An extension shall be assigned to each language so that sites or sites' versions written in specific languages can be easily found and identified. It would facilate greatly the task of search engines and would foster linguistic diversity. The gist of the breaktrough is the following : Automatic translation would be much improved if automatic tools could work with several human certified translation of the same language. For example, if the same document has been available in English and in French by the authors on the same site, and translated by human users in Russian and Korean on other sites, it would be tremendous advantage for automatic translation tools to have access and make use of all existing versions in different languages of the same document. For example "Société Civile" would not be translated in yet other languages such as Italian as "Civil Company" with the help the english version. Of course, it is required that the translation tools could retrieve and identify the various versions at different locations, therefore the need for the ODRI, as well as standardized metadata. SWgTLDs could be the keys to multilinguism on the Web.

    Other possible SW gTLDs:
    • equitable commerce global market place ( operated by UNCTAD )
    • trademarks ( operated by WIPO )





    • GOVERNANCE

    • A governance conflict can be avoided if the current DNS monopolistic situation no longer prevails. If a fair competition is introduced over all networks, then it is possible to let ICANN evolves to its own destiny, despite its uncertain legal status, under to its historic preferential govermental parentage.
    • Concerning Net4D governance, it is suggested to consider a transparent, inclusive, multi-stakeholder partnership, fully recognized within an international public context, according to the UNMSP proposal.
    • The role of the W3C that researchs and develops, for the public good, open (non-proprietary) standards, protocols and languages for the Semantic Web should be recognized, and a subtantial part of financial revenues, originating from the sales of WEB4D and EPC4D domains, should be allocated to support W3C activities.
    • The Net4D networks should be open and inclusive to interact with others resolving schemes ( eg Handle.net ).





    CONCLUSIONS


    • DNS 1.0 --> Monopoly : ICANN, Web 1.0 HTML, US parentage, English oriented.

    • DNS 2.0 --> Open competition including inter alia Net4D MSP, Web 2.0, XML, Web4D - EPC4D fully international and multilingual