Karl Mentioned in Boardwatch!
Starvo M. Beta
Well well, Congratulations to Karl, He has been mentioned in a GREAT
national Publication, BoardWatch Magazine. (Oct. 1996, Page 57, top Left
Column) While it's just a brief mention, it's still Good to see Chicago
ISP's getting mentioned! The Who; article is about The Internic, and the
Alternic, and All the Hell With Domain names. It's a GOOD article, and I
recommend that you read it, and Try one of the Alternate DNS servers, so
that you can see the rest of the WWW! Any Comments Karl? Any one here
wanna get into a Discussing about when All the new Tol level Domains are
coming in? (Or Has this already started, and I missed the bandwagon?)
Well Ciao
--
+------------------------------+
|Sta...@mc.net |
|Call my BBS! THK 815-459-3570 |
|WWW: http://user.mc.net/starvo+-------+
| "I May Be Lying In The Gutter, |
| But I am Still Staring at the Stars."|
+--------------------------------------+
Thomas H. Ptacek
24 Sep 1996 11:05:37 GMT sta...@maxx.mc.net:
>that you can see the rest of the WWW! Any Comments Karl? Any one here
>wanna get into a Discussing about when All the new Tol level Domains are
>coming in? (Or Has this already started, and I missed the bandwagon?)
Everyone on the net does not agree that Mr. Denninger's (and Mr.
Kashpureff's) registries are a good thing.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Ptacek at The rdist Organization / exit(main(kfp->kargc, argv, environ));
------------------------------------------------[ tq...@rdist.org ]-----------
"If you're so special, why aren't you dead?"
Karl Denninger
In article <slrn54gcp...@enteract.com>,
Thomas H. Ptacek <tq...@rdist.org> wrote:
>24 Sep 1996 11:05:37 GMT sta...@maxx.mc.net:
>>that you can see the rest of the WWW! Any Comments Karl? Any one here
>>wanna get into a Discussing about when All the new Tol level Domains are
>>coming in? (Or Has this already started, and I missed the bandwagon?)
>
>Everyone on the net does not agree that Mr. Denninger's (and Mr.
>Kashpureff's) registries are a good thing.
They ARE online.
--
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1 from $600 monthly; speeds to DS-3 available
| 23 Chicagoland Prefixes, 13 ISDN, much more
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "in...@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/
Fax: [+1 312 248-9865] | Home of Chicago's only FULL Clarinet feed!
Joe Adams
In article <528fa2$6...@news.mc.net>, sta...@maxx.mc.net (Starvo M. Beta) wrote:
:Well well, Congratulations to Karl,
Starvo, theres NO Reason to congratulate. C'mon now, its just a sales
pitch by him.
Most people don't buy it in its current form, especially pushed by Karl
Denninger.
:He has been mentioned in a GREAT national Publication, BoardWatch Magazine.
(Oct. 1996, Page 57, top Left Column) While it's just a brief mention,
it's still
:Good to see Chicago ISP's getting mentioned!
So what, there is brief Chicago related blurbs in publications all the time.
:The Who; article is about The Internic, and the Alternic, and All the Hell With
:Domain names. It's a GOOD article, and I recommend that you read it, and Try
:one of the Alternate DNS servers,
Why should we Try/Experiment with them at this time since the great majority
of posts see many problems with these alternate non-standard DNS servers?
Check out the non-karl posts about these in the
comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains newsgroup.
:that you can see the rest of the WWW! Any Comments Karl? Any one here
:wanna get into a Discussing about when All the new Tol level Domains are
:coming in? (Or Has this already started, and I missed the bandwagon?)
:Well Ciao
:+------------------------------+
:|Sta...@mc.net |
:|Call my BBS! THK 815-459-3570 |
:|WWW: http://user.mc.net/starvo+-------+
:| "I May Be Lying In The Gutter, |
:| But I am Still Staring at the Stars."|
:+--------------------------------------+
I wonder if other companys will be allowed to register the .biz domain or would
this be a monopoly by MCS? A monopoly like that would not be a good thing.
It seems that what Karl charges for registering these non-standard domains is
the same amount a established standard domain registration costs.
Why should someone risk with a non-standard unestablished domain server when
a standardized one costs the same? Would you trust a Alt server? Most would not.
If the registration cost was half, a more reputable entity was involved
and there
was much less criticism of these current alternative domain schemes then
these alternative DNS servers would have much more credibility.
Until there is a more acceptable reliable alternative domain system this
is just an early test experiment(with its attentant problems) by a few people.
Joe
Karl Denninger
In article <Adamsxxx-250...@ppp76.anet-chi.com>,
Joe Adams <Adam...@anet-chi.com> wrote:
>
>I wonder if other companys will be allowed to register the .biz domain or would
>this be a monopoly by MCS? A monopoly like that would not be a good thing.
You can choose .BIZ from us, or .COM from NSI, or others...
>It seems that what Karl charges for registering these non-standard domains is
>the same amount a established standard domain registration costs.
Nope. About half of the NSI cost, and with turn-around within 2-4 hours.
Guaranteed.
Matt Hucke
In article <52bnl8$k...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>
>Nope. About half of the NSI cost, and with turn-around within 2-4 hours.
Half the cost, and visible from one one-hundredth as many nameservers.
What a bargain!
--
hu...@cynico.com
Cynico Network Consulting Graveyards of Chicago:
http://www.enteract.com/~hucke http://www.graveyards.com
Karl Denninger
In article <52bolt$l...@eve.enteract.com>,
Matt Hucke <hu...@enteract.com> wrote:
>In article <52bnl8$k...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>>
>>Nope. About half of the NSI cost, and with turn-around within 2-4 hours.
>
>Half the cost, and visible from one one-hundredth as many nameservers.
Not for long.
da...@news1.anet-dfw.com
: >wanna get into a Discussing about when All the new Tol level Domains are
: >coming in? (Or Has this already started, and I missed the bandwagon?)
: Everyone on the net does not agree that Mr. Denninger's (and Mr.
: Kashpureff's) registries are a good thing.
Exactly. I believe the main problem here is the fact that no standards
currently exist for adding top level domains. What happens when Mr.
Denninger is not the only person who is running .nic domains? Lets say
Microsoft comes into the picture with billions of dollars to invest in making
a standard for a new top level domain service? Does this mean the
customers that pay for their .nic domain, now are basically obsolete to
the rest of the Internet that is using Microsoft's top level .nic domain?
I believe that something must be done to add a couple new top level domains.
However, who is to decide what they shall be, and the standards that will
apply? I think that ISP's should be concentrating on more important things
than new top level domains. How about all the ISP's and NSP's start
working with IP next generation so we can get the TCP/IP codes better and
faster. Im not sure if anyone realizes how easy it is to bring a network
to it's knees with very little effort, but problems associated with
TCP/IP need to be solved not only yesterday, but definately before we start
worrying about who has the best name.
David
------------------------------------------------
usenet administrator ne...@news1.anet-dfw.com
------------------------------------------------
ANET
Bryant Durrell
In article <52bpta$l...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>In article <52bolt$l...@eve.enteract.com>,
>Matt Hucke <hu...@enteract.com> wrote:
>>In article <52bnl8$k...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>>>Nope. About half of the NSI cost, and with turn-around within 2-4 hours.
>>
>>Half the cost, and visible from one one-hundredth as many nameservers.
>
>Not for long.
Then it won't hurt to wait until the current situation changes, will it?
Speaking of current situations:
shellx:/home/durrell> nslookup
Default Server: localhost
Address: 127.0.0.1
> server root-ns.mcs.net
Default Server: root-ns.mcs.net
Address: 192.160.127.86
> set q=ns
> .
Server: root-ns.mcs.net
Address: 192.160.127.86
(root) nameserver = ROOT-NS.MCS.NET
(root) nameserver = SIMBA.AGN.NET
(root) nameserver = ARAGORN.ALTERNIC.NET
(root) nameserver = ALEX.ALTERNIC.NET
(root) nameserver = MX.ALTERNIC.NET
(root) nameserver = EEK.HTTPD.COM
ROOT-NS.MCS.NET internet address = 192.160.127.86
SIMBA.AGN.NET internet address = 160.79.1.3
ARAGORN.ALTERNIC.NET internet address = 204.94.42.2
ALEX.ALTERNIC.NET internet address = 204.94.42.5
MX.ALTERNIC.NET internet address = 204.94.42.1
EEK.HTTPD.COM internet address = 204.182.105.150
> server SIMBA.AGN.NET
Default Server: SIMBA.AGN.NET
Address: 160.79.1.3
> biz.
Server: SIMBA.AGN.NET
Address: 160.79.1.3
*** SIMBA.AGN.NET can't find biz.: Non-existent host/domain
--
In four lines, I can just barely tell you that I am Bryant Durrell, that my
email address is dur...@innocence.com, that I have a Web page at (of course)
http://www.innocence.com/~durrell, that I also run Shadowfist and Feng Shui
Web pages accessible from the above URL, and by the time I'm done I'm out of
Matt Hucke
>>>Nope. About half of the NSI cost, and with turn-around within 2-4 hours.
>>
>>Half the cost, and visible from one one-hundredth as many nameservers.
>
>Not for long.
Do you mean you'll be raising your price to match NSI's?
Karl Denninger
In article <52bij6$1...@news1.anet-dfw.com>, <da...@news1.anet-dfw.com> wrote:
>Thomas H. Ptacek (tq...@enteract.com) wrote:
>: 24 Sep 1996 11:05:37 GMT sta...@maxx.mc.net:
>: >that you can see the rest of the WWW! Any Comments Karl? Any one here
>: >wanna get into a Discussing about when All the new Tol level Domains are
>: >coming in? (Or Has this already started, and I missed the bandwagon?)
>
>: Everyone on the net does not agree that Mr. Denninger's (and Mr.
>: Kashpureff's) registries are a good thing.
>
>Exactly. I believe the main problem here is the fact that no standards
>currently exist for adding top level domains. What happens when Mr.
>Denninger is not the only person who is running .nic domains? Lets say
>Microsoft comes into the picture with billions of dollars to invest in making
>a standard for a new top level domain service? Does this mean the
>customers that pay for their .nic domain, now are basically obsolete to
>the rest of the Internet that is using Microsoft's top level .nic domain?
Because there is no reason to do this -- you screw both yourself AND the
other guy who has prior use.
The IANA's role should be relegated to enforcing "first use, first serve"
practice and that's it. If that was what they were doing (acting to police
possible multiple claims and nothing more) nobody would have a problem with
their actions.
Instead they're trying to set up a government, including tax authority, bias
the proceedings (the current NSI domains and all the ISO country domains are
exempt from their proposed "taxes" -- why?) and in addition to that they
have told reporters that their intended use for the funds generates it to
pay the costs incurred by the ad-hoc committee!
US $1M a year?! And why should they be compensated at all? Every other
IETF committee is run by volunteers -- why not this one?
The whole IANA game here smells like dead fish, and its in the best interest
of the community to put a stop to it right now.
Karl Denninger
In article <52brpn$q...@eve.enteract.com>,
Matt Hucke <hu...@enteract.com> wrote:
>In article <52bpta$l...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>
>>>>Nope. About half of the NSI cost, and with turn-around within 2-4 hours.
>>>
>>>Half the cost, and visible from one one-hundredth as many nameservers.
>>
>>Not for long.
>
>Do you mean you'll be raising your price to match NSI's?
No. I mean that penetration is rapidly increasing.
From all reports I've seen so far, from 1% to 5% in 30 days, or a growth
rate of 400% in *one month*.
Not bad eh?
It will continue.
Bob Fisher
ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>In article <52brpn$q...@eve.enteract.com>,
>Matt Hucke <hu...@enteract.com> wrote:
>>In article <52bpta$l...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Nope. About half of the NSI cost, and with turn-around within 2-4 hours.
>>>>
>>>>Half the cost, and visible from one one-hundredth as many nameservers.
>>>
>>>Not for long.
>>
>>Do you mean you'll be raising your price to match NSI's?
>
>No. I mean that penetration is rapidly increasing.
>
>From all reports I've seen so far, from 1% to 5% in 30 days, or a growth
>rate of 400% in *one month*.
>
>Not bad eh?
>
>It will continue.
>
>--
>--
You're assuming exponential growth on two samples? Normal regression
would only give you a straight line on that.
Let's see: that's 1%/week, or approximately 2 years to get to 100%.
Matthew Dillon
:In article <52bvci$m...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
:>In article <52brpn$q...@eve.enteract.com>,
:>Matt Hucke <hu...@enteract.com> wrote:
:>>In article <52bpta$l...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
:>>
:>>>>>Nope. About half of the NSI cost, and with turn-around within 2-4 hours.
:>>>>
:>>>>Half the cost, and visible from one one-hundredth as many nameservers.
:>>>
:>>>Not for long.
:>>
:>>Do you mean you'll be raising your price to match NSI's?
:>
:>No. I mean that penetration is rapidly increasing.
:>
:>From all reports I've seen so far, from 1% to 5% in 30 days, or a growth
:>rate of 400% in *one month*.
:>
:>Not bad eh?
:>
:>It will continue.
:>
:>--
:>--
:>http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1 from $600 monthly; speeds to DS-3 available
:> | 23 Chicagoland Prefixes, 13 ISDN, much more
:>Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "in...@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/
:>Fax: [+1 312 248-9865] | Home of Chicago's only FULL Clarinet feed!
The carrot is the breaking of the NIC's monopoly. I don't give a damn
what Karl charges now... I want to break the NIC's monopoly!! With
competition, prices will fall. It may take a year, but they will
definitely fall. The faster people get on-board with at LEAST the
concept, the better off we will all be.
-Matt
apollo:/home/dillon> nslookup -query=mx smoke.usa.
Server: localhost.backplane.com
Address: 127.0.0.1
Non-authoritative answer:
smoke.usa preference = 10, mail exchanger = mail.troy.ny.us
smoke.usa preference = 20, mail exchanger = mail3.new-york.net
Authoritative answers can be found from:
smoke.usa nameserver = NS3.NORWALK.COM
smoke.usa nameserver = PR.NORWALK.COM
mail3.new-york.net internet address = 165.254.2.58
NS3.NORWALK.COM internet address = 206.72.196.240
PR.NORWALK.COM internet address = 165.254.235.37
apollo:/home/dillon>
--
Matthew Dillon Engineering, BEST Internet Communications, Inc.
<dil...@best.net>
[always include a portion of the original email in any response!]
Gerry Swetsky
In article <52bpta$l...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>
>>Half the cost, and visible from one one-hundredth as many nameservers.
>
>Not for long.
Hmmmmm, where have we heard that before?
--
============================================================================
| Help stamp out stupid .signature files! Gerry Swetsky WB9EBO |
| lis...@vpnet.chi.il.us |
============================================================================
Klaus Steinberger
In article <52bvci$m...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
|> In article <52brpn$q...@eve.enteract.com>,
|> Matt Hucke <hu...@enteract.com> wrote:
|> >>>
|> >>
|> >>Not for long.
|> >
|>
|> No. I mean that penetration is rapidly increasing.
|>
|> From all reports I've seen so far, from 1% to 5% in 30 days, or a growth
|> rate of 400% in *one month*.
Where do you get your numbers? 5% from what? 5% of mcs connected sites?
5% of US sites or 5% of world wide sites?
Don't play bad games with numbers. You will not even reach 1% of US sites.
Why do you believe site admins will have changed their root.db?
Sincerly,
Klaus
--
Klaus Steinberger Beschleunigerlabor der TU und LMU Muenchen
Phone: (+49 89)289 14287 Hochschulgelaende, D-85748 Garching, Germany
FAX: (+49 89)289 14280 EMail: Klaus.St...@Physik.Uni-Muenchen.DE
URL: http://www.bl.physik.tu-muenchen.de/~k2/k2.html
Jude Crouch
Gerry Swetsky (lis...@vpnet.chi.il.us) plays "stump the regulars":
: In article <52bpta$l...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
: >
: >>Half the cost, and visible from one one-hundredth as many nameservers.
: >
: >Not for long.
: Hmmmmm, where have we heard that before?
biz.*?
--
Jude Crouch (jcr...@pobox.com) - Computing since 1967!
Crouch Enterprises - Telecom, Internet & Unix Consulting
Oak Park, IL 708-848-0145 URL: http://www.pobox.com/~jcrouch
Karl Denninger
In article <52dbje$s...@sparcserver.lrz-muenchen.de>,
Klaus Steinberger <k...@physik.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
>In article <52bvci$m...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>|>
>|> No. I mean that penetration is rapidly increasing.
>|>
>|> From all reports I've seen so far, from 1% to 5% in 30 days, or a growth
>|> rate of 400% in *one month*.
>
>Where do you get your numbers? 5% from what? 5% of mcs connected sites?
>5% of US sites or 5% of world wide sites?
100% of MCS connected sites and customers can get to these TLDs.
Eugene's last report said about 5% of the *total* DNS servers he polled
(internationally) could resolve the Alternic TLDs. The US number is
something like 1% and climbing rapidly.
BEST Internet in California, for example, just turned them on.
>Don't play bad games with numbers. You will not even reach 1% of US sites.
Don't bet on it.
>Why do you believe site admins will have changed their root.db?
Because their customers want access to these sites.
Matthias Urlichs
In comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains, article <52c7c9$a...@flash.noc.best.net>,
dil...@best.com (Matthew Dillon) writes:
>
> The carrot is the breaking of the NIC's monopoly. I don't give a damn
> what Karl charges now... I want to break the NIC's monopoly!! With
There's a difference between breaking a monopoly with a sledgehammer, and
dismantling it in a responsible way.
The latter is happening (albeit a tad slow, or so it seems), but then that's
because a greater-than-zero number of lawyers is involved.
The former is simply irresponsible, both to the customers of the new fake
domains some people are setting up and to the Internet community at large.
For that reason alone, I sincerely hope that whoever awards .biz after the
legal tangle is untangled will _not_ give it to those who are playing with
this (among others, it seems) pseudo-top-level domains right now.
'Nuff said.
--
It is impossible to enjoy idling unless there is plenty of work to do.
-- Jerome K. Jerome (1859-1927)
--
Matthias Urlichs \ noris network GmbH / Xlink-POP Nürnberg
Schleiermacherstraße 12 \ Linux+Internet / EMail: url...@noris.de
90491 Nürnberg (Germany) \ Consulting+Programming+Networking+etc'ing
PGP: 1024/4F578875 1B 89 E2 1C 43 EA 80 44 15 D2 29 CF C6 C7 E0 DE
Click <A HREF="http://info.noris.de/~smurf/finger">here</A>. 42
Matt Hucke
In article <52e9pk$7...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>
>100% of MCS connected sites and customers can get to these TLDs.
Are you saying that you've verified that everyone with a leased line
to you is using your root nameservers? 100%? There is not even *one*
who has their own nameserver configured, and has chosen not to
participate?
Or perhaps you intentionally chose the weasel-word "can", which means
to be able to do something. In that sense, 100% of your customers
"can" get to these TLDs, just like 100% of the general populace. Of
course, the percentage that actually choose to do so is far less in
both cases.
>Eugene's last report said about 5% of the *total* DNS servers he
polled
*There's* an unbiased, credible source.
>>Why do you believe site admins will have changed their root.db?
>
>Because their customers want access to these sites.
How many customers have really asked for access to these "sites"?
(Are there actually any "sites" that don't have real working domain
names in addition to your fake names?)
How many ISPs have chosen to participate due to customer requests to
access outside TLDs, rather than because the ISP itself stands to
profit from running a registry?
Karl Denninger
In article <52eaca$j...@eve.enteract.com>,
Matt Hucke <hu...@enteract.com> wrote:
>In article <52e9pk$7...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
(ad-hominen elided)
>>Eugene's last report said about 5% of the *total* DNS servers he
>polled
>
>*There's* an unbiased, credible source.
His results have been correlated with others.
>>>Why do you believe site admins will have changed their root.db?
>>
>>Because their customers want access to these sites.
>
>How many customers have really asked for access to these "sites"?
>(Are there actually any "sites" that don't have real working domain
>names in addition to your fake names?)
>
>How many ISPs have chosen to participate due to customer requests to
>access outside TLDs, rather than because the ISP itself stands to
>profit from running a registry?
What interest does BEST Internet have in this other than filling their
customer's needs?
And the ISPs in Canada who have publically signed on?
And those who *haven't* done so publically, but are running the zones
nonetheless?
There are only a few firms interested in running iTLDs -- a miniscule
fraction of the total number of resolvers who can find these names.
Karl Denninger
In article <52e9vb$1...@work.smurf.noris.de>,
Matthias Urlichs <sm...@noris.de> wrote:
>In comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains, article <52c7c9$a...@flash.noc.best.net>,
> dil...@best.com (Matthew Dillon) writes:
>>
>> The carrot is the breaking of the NIC's monopoly. I don't give a damn
>> what Karl charges now... I want to break the NIC's monopoly!! With
>
>There's a difference between breaking a monopoly with a sledgehammer, and
>dismantling it in a responsible way.
>
>The latter is happening (albeit a tad slow, or so it seems), but then that's
>because a greater-than-zero number of lawyers is involved.
Actually, at this point the lawyers are involved -- they weren't according
to USC at the time this began, and there is also no guarantee that the IANA
will actually manage to do any of what they want.
>For that reason alone, I sincerely hope that whoever awards .biz after the
>legal tangle is untangled will _not_ give it to those who are playing with
>this (among others, it seems) pseudo-top-level domains right now.
The fastest way for the IANA to get sued would be to deny those making prior
use of these names their support if and when they add *anything* to the iTLD
namespace.
Bill Watts
In article <52c7c9$a...@flash.noc.best.net>,
Matthew Dillon <dil...@best.com> wrote:
> The carrot is the breaking of the NIC's monopoly. I don't give a damn
> what Karl charges now... I want to break the NIC's monopoly!! With
> definitely fall. The faster people get on-board with at LEAST the
> concept, the better off we will all be.
You will only transfer the monopoly from NIC to whoever dishes out TLDs.
Do you think IBM, Microsoft, et al will register in some tow truck
driver's TLD instead of getting their own? Everybody will want a TLD,
and the situation will be exactly the same.
There is going to be no more of a market for registering names in other
people's TLDs than there is today in registering subdomains in other
people's domains.
Karl Denninger
In article <52egjb$g...@access5.digex.net>,
This isn't being done to "create a market".
Its being done to:
1) Drive the process towards one of free competition and *improved
service at lower cost* for the customer.
2) Force changes in policy regarding disputes, or failing that, giving
people a *choice* of dispute resolution policies (through different
registries).
3) Partially solve the trademark problems by making the iTLD namespace
two-dimensional (trademarks are three dimensional -- we cannot force
the third dimension on TLDs, but some registries may impose it
on their own). Right now we have a ONE dimensional namespace, which
is why there are all kinds of disputes (the current system is two
dimensions out of whack with reality)
4) Insure that no single entity (including the IANA) is able to impose
monopoly conditions, including fees and taxes, on the DNS (or IP for
that matter) namespace, which we argue belongs to the people -- not
four (or is it three, or two?) guys out at USC in California.
I don't know of any of the registry operators in the Enhanced DNS system
(myself included) who are trying to make a killing off registry fees. In
fact, I don't expect we'll make a operationally-significant profit on our
services *at all*. Why not? Because out of the money we collect we will
run our own infrastructure and TLD servers for those zones (all of which
cost money) and in addition to that we expect prices to drop over time --
perhaps significant drop.
The goals are 1-4 above.
Not trying to see how many millions of dollars one can collect on the way.
I note that improved service from NSI has *already* come out of this. I am
now getting .COM registrations back in about 12 hours, operational the next
day. Still 1/12th of the performance of our .BIZ registry (we return results
in one hour, and put the names online in 4) but its a damn sight better than
its ever been before.
I'd be willing to bet that as penetration of the eDNS service grows, NSI's
prices will drop precipitously. Their $20M revenue stream might start to
look more like $3-4 million..... and DNS registry may now cost $10 - 20 a
year instead of $50.
Nick Hilliard
Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.COM) said:
: day. Still 1/12th of the performance of our .BIZ registry (we return
: results in one hour, and put the names online in 4) but its a damn sight
: better than its ever been before.
Horseshit Karl, complete and utter horseshit.
How can you possibly quote this as a reliable indication of how your
"registry" performs after registering one single domain applicant in two
weeks? Yes, one single, sole and very lonely applicant.
Please get a life.
Nick
Nick Hilliard
Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.COM) said:
: The fastest way for the IANA to get sued would be to deny those making
: prior use of these names their support if and when they add *anything* to
: the iTLD namespace.
Is this a threat?
Nick
abraxas
> In article <52eaca$j...@eve.enteract.com>,
> Matt Hucke <hu...@enteract.com> wrote:
> >In article <52e9pk$7...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>
> (ad-hominen elided)
>
> >>Eugene's last report said about 5% of the *total* DNS servers he
> >polled
> >
> >*There's* an unbiased, credible source.
>
> His results have been correlated with others.
>
This tells me nothing. What others? What sort of correlation? You are
blowing shit again Carl, at least have the argumentative stamina to back
yourself up.
> >>>Why do you believe site admins will have changed their root.db?
> >>
> >>Because their customers want access to these sites.
> >
> >How many customers have really asked for access to these "sites"?
> >(Are there actually any "sites" that don't have real working domain
> >names in addition to your fake names?)
> >
> >How many ISPs have chosen to participate due to customer requests to
> >access outside TLDs, rather than because the ISP itself stands to
> >profit from running a registry?
>
> What interest does BEST Internet have in this other than filling their
> customer's needs?
>
Making a buttload of money and filling customers needs are not nessesarily
always the same thing. But then I guess you already knew that.....:)
Please Carl, in the interest of maintaining at least MY attention, please
try to back up the things you say with a few facts.
-----yttrx
Karl Denninger
In article <52ek9u$2...@ezekiel.ieunet.ie>,
Nick Hilliard <ni...@Ireland.EU.net> wrote:
>Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.COM) said:
>: day. Still 1/12th of the performance of our .BIZ registry (we return
>: results in one hour, and put the names online in 4) but its a damn sight
>: better than its ever been before.
>
>Horseshit Karl, complete and utter horseshit.
Boy oh boy... nice ad-hominen there.
>How can you possibly quote this as a reliable indication of how your
>"registry" performs after registering one single domain applicant in two
>weeks? Yes, one single, sole and very lonely applicant.
You're not looking at all the iTLDs we manage... try again.
We'd have over 100 operational domains right now if we accepted applications
with misconfigured nameservers and VANITY registrations.
But, unlike NSI, we don't.
What does that say about the OTHER registries which aren't actually checking
the validity of the nameservers listed? 60-90% of those aren't "real"?
Quite possibly.
Matt Hucke
In article <52enp2$d...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>>Horseshit Karl, complete and utter horseshit.
>
>Boy oh boy... nice ad-hominen there.
"ad hominem" means "to/towards the man". "horseshit" here refers not
to you, but to your words, and is therefore not "ad hominem".
>We'd have over 100 operational domains right now if we accepted applications
>with misconfigured nameservers and VANITY registrations.
>But, unlike NSI, we don't.
How do you define a "vanity" registration, and how do you determine
which of the incoming registrations are "vanity" domains?
Are you setting yourself up in judgement of the worth of new domains?
If that's the case, then I'd rather deal with NSI.
Matt Hucke
In article <52eekt$9...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>(ad-hominen elided)
Once again you misuse "ad hominem", completely ignoring the point I
had made.
I repeat: your claim that 100% of your customers can access the new
TLDs is demonstrably FALSE, for not all of them use your nameservers.
Right now I am running nslookup, querying a server run by a
leased-line customer of yours (verified by traceroute). This server
does not recognize biz., corp., nic., mcs.biz., or mcs.corp. It has a
root server list of [ABCDEFGHI].root-servers.net and no others.
Fewer than 100% of your customers are resolving names in the rogue
TLDs.
Matthew Dillon
:In article <52ek9u$2...@ezekiel.ieunet.ie>,
:Nick Hilliard <ni...@Ireland.EU.net> wrote:
:>Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.COM) said:
:>: day. Still 1/12th of the performance of our .BIZ registry (we return
:>: results in one hour, and put the names online in 4) but its a damn sight
:>: better than its ever been before.
:>Horseshit Karl, complete and utter horseshit.
>
:>How can you possibly quote this as a reliable indication of how your
:>"registry" performs after registering one single domain applicant in two
:>weeks? Yes, one single, sole and very lonely applicant.
:>Please get a life.
:>
:>Nick
While Karl is often prone to rather flavorfull talk, I think you (Nick),
and just about everyone else opposing him are being extremely unfair.
Just about everyone on the negative side of this issue seem to find
satisfaction in pointing to a particular problem and saying: "SEE!
I TOLD YOU SO! IT DOESN'T WORK", as if the existance of the problem
now somehow translates to a permanent condition, and as if all the
other vaporware that they advocate as a replacement will somehow be
perfect implementations themselves and solve all the problems before
they even come off the drawing board!
Bug free software is an impossibility.
That folks, is like comparing current day RISC processors to what you
theorize will exist 10 years from now and saying: "SEE, THEY WORK LIKE
SHIT, LETS THROW THEM AWAY"... and replace them with what? Vaporware?
Read this clause from the IANA proposal:
>>>>>>>>
6.4. Review Criteria
All applications are judged on three criteria: Registration
Services, Operational Resources, and Business Aspects.
Business aspects are not necessarily the most important criteria,
reliability, quality of service, sustainability, are also
important aspects.
When a registry which has provided good quality and reliable
service comes up for charter renewal, barring unusual
circumstances, the charter renewal application should be approved.
The ad hoc committee shall define an unbiased method for breaking
ties between otherwise equally qualified proposals.
<<<<<<<<<
First, paragraph 3: I read that to mean that, under the IANA
proposal, the NIC will be able to hold on to all of the TLDs it
currently controls. That's ok with me, but people should be aware
of it.
Now, read paragraph's 1 and 2: I read that rather simply... you have
to prove you are serious if you want control of a TLD or set of TLDs.
Now, I can count the number of serious non-governmental organizations
wanting to run TLDs on one hand. In fact, I could be
'Dillon Three Fingers' and the count would STILL fit on one hand.... and
the Alternic is one of them.
If the IANA did not seriously consider the Alternic's TLDs relative to
what are likely to be dozens of vaporware proposals... stuff that looks
pretty on paper but with NO proven ability to live up to the IANAs
standards, then the Alternic will have the moral high ground because
they will have REAL LIFE statistics accumulated by the time we get to
decision making.
A person who advocates that we let the NIC and IANA go their merry way
and not try to apply pressure is a person who does not understand the
heights of deceitfullness that third party corporations will go to in
order to obtain something. We are at a decided disadvantage in any
formalized process, and the Alternic is the only thing that even has
a chance at leveling the playing field.
When you have only two players, you can't call one of them rogue.
--
Now, on the other side of the coin... The Alternic is going to have to
go through the IANA's process, when they finally agree on one, in order
to be able to maintain the high ground. If the Alternic ignores the IANA
entirely, the Alternic will wind up as so much dust (though it will have
been remembered as serving a useful purpose in the 'old days' :-)).
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
:In article <52epmg$c...@eve.enteract.com>,
:Matt Hucke <hu...@enteract.com> wrote:
I think you are missing the point. 100%, 95%, 90% ... if it's more
then 0% it's significant.
"Oh no! He lied... it isn't 100%! It's 99% Why, that invalidates
EVERYTHING!".
Give me a break.
You know people, if you want to argue, you could at least back up your
arguments with real numbers. So far all I hear is opinion, whereas
I hear hard numbers from the Alternic. They may not be entirely
correct... but they are still hard numbers, from someone saying:
"I POLLED xxxx SITES AND FOUND ....", verses what I hear from the
otherside, which is more on the order of "MY OPINION IS THAT YOU ARE
FULL OF HORSESHIT, BUT I HAVEN'T DONE ANY TESTS TO CONFIRM THAT".
I put about as much credence in the latter as I do when someone tells
me that a bowl of cereal may have intelligence!
Karl Denninger
In article <52eon9$c...@eve.enteract.com>,
Matt Hucke <hu...@enteract.com> wrote:
>In article <52enp2$d...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>
>>We'd have over 100 operational domains right now if we accepted applications
>>with misconfigured nameservers and VANITY registrations.
>>But, unlike NSI, we don't.
>
>How do you define a "vanity" registration, and how do you determine
>which of the incoming registrations are "vanity" domains?
>
>Are you setting yourself up in judgement of the worth of new domains?
>
>If that's the case, then I'd rather deal with NSI.
Gee, Matt, what do you call a domain which has no authoritative returns for
the SOA records on the Internet?
I call it a vanity registration.
*I* do not set myself up in judgment. MCSNet *does* require that the domain
servers you list be *correctly configured* and returning *authoritative* SOA
records for the domain you attempt to register -- or the request gets
bounced.
Thomas H. Ptacek
26 Sep 1996 12:28:39 -0500 ka...@MCS.COM:
>The fastest way for the IANA to get sued would be to deny those making prior
>use of these names their support if and when they add *anything* to the iTLD
>namespace.
Mr. Denninger, all other points aside, this makes it sound like the only
reason you're running these registries is to sieze "dibs" on iTLDs so that
when the IANA does decide on how iTLD expansion is to proceed, you'll
automatically get the ones you've chosen (or have what you feel will be
grounds to sue for them).
This is only my perception of what you're saying, but from my perspective,
what you're doing doesn't seem too noble, pioneering, or worthwhile.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Ptacek at The rdist Organization / exit(main(kfp->kargc, argv, environ));
------------------------------------------------[ tq...@rdist.org ]-----------
"If you're so special, why aren't you dead?"
Karl Denninger
In article <slrn54ltf...@enteract.com>,
Thomas H. Ptacek <tq...@rdist.org> wrote:
>26 Sep 1996 12:28:39 -0500 ka...@MCS.COM:
>>The fastest way for the IANA to get sued would be to deny those making prior
>>use of these names their support if and when they add *anything* to the iTLD
>>namespace.
>
>Mr. Denninger, all other points aside, this makes it sound like the only
>reason you're running these registries is to sieze "dibs" on iTLDs so that
>when the IANA does decide on how iTLD expansion is to proceed, you'll
>automatically get the ones you've chosen (or have what you feel will be
>grounds to sue for them).
>
>This is only my perception of what you're saying, but from my perspective,
>what you're doing doesn't seem too noble, pioneering, or worthwhile.
What do you call the very real turn-around change at the InterNIC in the last
four weeks?
From several days to 14 hours? That just happened for no reason, right?
Or perhaps is the real effect showing up because that ugly word, competition,
is rearing its head out there, and NSI is figuring out that they had damn
well better start providing effective service or they WILL lose out?
Next target: cost.
The solution to a monopoly is to break it up. This particular monopoly is
extraordinarily simple to violate, and its being done.
If you don't want to get on board, that's your choice, but what will you do
when your customers start asking for access to those domains?
Tell them to go stuff?
Or enable eTLD access?
I thought that Enteract was interested in providing the *best* service? How
do you square that with firewalling off these DNS names DELIBERATELY from
your customers? That is, by the way, precisely what you've odne.
Means are available to PERMIT access which have absolutely ZERO chance of
screwing up your IANA-sponsored root links.
What is your REAL motivation here Tom?
Bryant Durrell
>Nick Hilliard <ni...@Ireland.EU.net> wrote:
>>How can you possibly quote this as a reliable indication of how your
>>"registry" performs after registering one single domain applicant in two
>>weeks? Yes, one single, sole and very lonely applicant.
>
>
>with misconfigured nameservers and VANITY registrations.
>
>But, unlike NSI, we don't.
>
>the validity of the nameservers listed? 60-90% of those aren't "real"?
>
>Quite possibly.
Yes, but that's not the point he was making. He was pointing out that
your performance demands aren't very high.
--
In four lines, I can just barely tell you that I am Bryant Durrell, that my
email address is dur...@innocence.com, that I have a Web page at (of course)
http://www.innocence.com/~durrell, that I also run Shadowfist and Feng Shui
Web pages accessible from the above URL, and by the time I'm done I'm out of
Bryant Durrell
In article <52eqn2$a...@flash.noc.best.net>,
Matthew Dillon <dil...@best.com> wrote:
> Now, I can count the number of serious non-governmental organizations
> wanting to run TLDs on one hand. In fact, I could be
> 'Dillon Three Fingers' and the count would STILL fit on one hand.... and
> the Alternic is one of them.
This is not true. Let's count:
NSI
Alternic
Simon Higgs' company, whose name I do not recall
IO Design (Chris Ambler)
Netnames
Memra Software (Michael Dillon)
It's very important to realize that there's no shortage of people who
are capable of doing this; it's simply that many of them aren't
attempting to unethically get a head start on the game.
You may or may not want to count MCS as separate; I don't think it's
apropos in this instance. Regardless, there are six that I happen
to know about. I wouldn't bet that there aren't quite a few more I
don't know about, and all six of those groups have the expertise to
run a TLD.
Karl Denninger
In article <52f18e$4...@shellx.best.com>,
Bryant Durrell <dur...@best.com> wrote:
>
>Yes, but that's not the point he was making. He was pointing out that
>your performance demands aren't very high.
He is unable to see how many registration *requests* we have handled.
Therefore, that statement was being made without any factual basis
whatsoever. Not that this is surprising on Usenet.
Bryant Durrell
In article <52er9q$a...@flash.noc.best.net>,
Matthew Dillon <dil...@best.com> wrote:
> You know people, if you want to argue, you could at least back up your
> arguments with real numbers. So far all I hear is opinion, whereas
> I hear hard numbers from the Alternic. They may not be entirely
> correct... but they are still hard numbers, from someone saying:
> "I POLLED xxxx SITES AND FOUND ....", verses what I hear from the
> otherside, which is more on the order of "MY OPINION IS THAT YOU ARE
> FULL OF HORSESHIT, BUT I HAVEN'T DONE ANY TESTS TO CONFIRM THAT".
Matt, the original poll was done by Keith Weinstein, who is not an
Alternic supporter. His numbers showed that approximately one percent
of the domains in the polled area recognized the Alternic domains.
Eugene of the Alternic later did a more comprehensive poll, which
showed, as I recall, under three percent of the world's domains
recognizing the Alternic. I do not believe anyone has done a survey
testing the number of hosts and/or people who can resolve these
domains; I think the next thing that's needed is a survey testing the
number of hosts. At this point, with Best recognizing the Alternic,
a survey based purely on domains is not meaningful, as you've just
added 10,000 or so domains without substantially increasing the number
of actual hosts that'll see a .usa domain.
btw, did you notice that almost all of the 50 .usa domains have no
records associated with them, and are registered to norwalk.com?
Kevin A. Mitchell
In article <52euen$g...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>If you don't want to get on board, that's your choice, but what will you do
>when your customers start asking for access to those domains?
Your web page says you're offering the user of you nameservers for that
purpose.
>I thought that Enteract was interested in providing the *best* service? How
>do you square that with firewalling off these DNS names DELIBERATELY from
>your customers? That is, by the way, precisely what you've odne.
"Firewall" is a fairly specific term. So I did an experiment to see if
I could use your offer of that nameserver from within EnterAct, and it
works:
$ dig @192.160.127.86 mcs.biz soa
; <<>> DiG 2.1 <<>> @192.160.127.86 mcs.biz soa
; (1 server found)
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 10
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; Ques: 1, Ans: 1, Auth: 2, Addit: 2
;; QUESTIONS:
;; mcs.biz, type = SOA, class = IN
;; ANSWERS:
mcs.biz. 86400 SOA Cerebus.mcs.biz. karl.mcs.biz. (
96090500 ; serial
36000 ; refresh (10 hours)
1800 ; retry (30 mins)
3600000 ; expire (41 days 16 hours)
86400 ) ; minimum (1 day)
;; AUTHORITY RECORDS:
mcs.biz. 86400 NS cerebus.mcs.com.
mcs.biz. 86400 NS kitten.mcs.com.
;; ADDITIONAL RECORDS:
cerebus.mcs.com. 86400 A 192.160.127.125
kitten.mcs.com. 86400 A 192.160.127.90
;; Total query time: 28 msec
;; FROM: adam to SERVER: 192.160.127.86
;; WHEN: Thu Sep 26 17:51:31 1996
;; MSG SIZE sent: 25 rcvd: 156
It's not like EnterAct is _denying_ access. I could, if I felt the need,
point all my machines at that nameserver, and access it through
EnterAct's routers. Not at all like a firewall.
>Means are available to PERMIT access which have absolutely ZERO chance of
>screwing up your IANA-sponsored root links.
I've been following this one for a while, and I must say, Karl, that
you have no lack of ambition. I can respect that. But under what
authority do you run your NIC?
I think it'll work a lot better when the Internet community can come to
some consensus on alternate NICs. IMHO, there has to be some authority
listing root nameservers, if only to avoid utter chaos.
Until then, all you can really depend on is the power of persuasion.
Not everybody will be persuaded. And not all system administrators
are likely to participate in what is openly billed as an experiment.
I will say this: it's a brash, bold, move. And it will likely bring
change, and probably good change.
Kevin
--
Kevin A. Mitchell, k...@kamit.com
Personal: http://www.kamit.com/
GIFConverter: gifcon...@kamit.com or k...@kagi.com
http://www.kamit.com/gifconverter.html
Thomas H. Ptacek
26 Sep 1996 17:00:55 -0500 ka...@MCS.COM:
>From several days to 14 hours? That just happened for no reason, right?
This has nothing to do with the point I made.
You explicitly stated that a failure of the IANA to permit you continued
access (and, it seems, sponsorship) for your admittedly "expirimental"
project would be grounds for litigation.
I'm simply saying that that sentiment would seem to indicate that your
motivation for establishing your registries have less to do with providing
immediate competition with the NIC (which you cannot do until the majority
of Internet connected sites resolve the alternate TLDs), than with what
appears to be an attempt to shoehorn yourself into the system when
additional top level domains ARE allowed by the IANA.
Furthermore, in recognition of the fact that I have no idea what your
motives really are (experience has taught me never to even try to guess),
I'm specifically not accusing you of attempting to employ such tactics.
What I do think is that you're doing the bulk of those who do not favor
the NSI monopoly a disservice by polarizing the issue, and adding
confusion to the real issues. Not everyone who "opposes" the InterNIC
"favors" yours (or Eugene's) plans. Of course, that's an issue totally out
of your control, given your seeming dedication to your side of the TLD
expansion fence.
>The solution to a monopoly is to break it up. This particular monopoly is
>extraordinarily simple to violate, and its being done.
I (and many of the people arguing vehemently with you) agree
wholeheartedly with that. As you're aware, this is not the issue being
raised with your TLD scheme.
>If you don't want to get on board, that's your choice, but what will you do
>when your customers start asking for access to those domains?
>Tell them to go stuff?
We are an Internet Service Provider. .BIZ is not part of the Internet.
It's that simple.
>I thought that Enteract was interested in providing the *best* service? How
No, we are "committed" to providing the best service.
Mr. Denninger, I'd assume you believe your arguments would stand up on
their own weight. If your project is so worthwhile, I wouldn't expect you
to need to attempt to coerce organizations into following along with your
plans.
I think you do your project a disservice by suggesting that parties in
disagreement with your (as yet unsettled) argument will somehow suffer for
their lack of participation in it.
>do you square that with firewalling off these DNS names DELIBERATELY from
>your customers? That is, by the way, precisely what you've odne.
We are "firewalling" nothing from our customers. I'm sure you'll
reconsider that argument, as it's a bit underhanded of you to suggest that
our failure to actively participate in your project constitutes some
willing denial of service to our customers.
In order for our nameservice to recognize your alternate top level
domains, we would need to alter it's configuration with information
provided by your organization. At this point in time, we are unwilling to
do that, as, in this situation, such an action would seem to constitute
our sponsorship of your project.
>Means are available to PERMIT access which have absolutely ZERO chance of
>screwing up your IANA-sponsored root links.
We've never asserted that your root cache file would do anything to harm
resolution of "traditional" top level domains.
>What is your REAL motivation here Tom?
Oh, you found me out! I'm secretly being funded by the IANA to stop you!
Curses! My secret Ninja Powers were insufficient to mask my concealed
hidden agenda! My superiors will surely punish me severely for my failure!
Damn you, Karl Denninger! Damn you!
Richard Sexton
>Matthew Dillon <dil...@best.com> wrote:
>> The carrot is the breaking of the NIC's monopoly. I don't give a damn
>> what Karl charges now... I want to break the NIC's monopoly!! With
>> competition, prices will fall. It may take a year, but they will
>> definitely fall. The faster people get on-board with at LEAST the
>> concept, the better off we will all be.
>
>You will only transfer the monopoly from NIC to whoever dishes out TLDs.
>
>Do you think IBM, Microsoft, et al will register in some tow truck
>driver's TLD instead of getting their own? Everybody will want a TLD,
>and the situation will be exactly the same.
>
>There is going to be no more of a market for registering names in other
>people's TLDs than there is today in registering subdomains in other
>people's domains.
You arn't aware of the movement toward *shared* registries ?
--
Richard Sexton
ro...@cabal.org
Alan Miller
Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>If you don't want to get on board, that's your choice, but what will you do
>when your customers start asking for access to those domains?
Or even web page tables from the shell...
>Tell them to go stuff?
>I thought that Enteract was interested in providing the *best* service? How
>do you square that with firewalling off these DNS names DELIBERATELY from
>your customers? That is, by the way, precisely what you've odne.
So Enteract is preventing systems from connecting to whatever the IP
address for your alternate TLD server is by blocking packets at their
router?
>What is your REAL motivation here Tom?
Karl, if you think sarcasm is call to stop reading issues from a person,
what's this? Reason to cancel all articles from you on the local spool?
ajm (trying to inject a slight voice of reason)
--
Alan Miller \\ a...@mcs.com or a...@pobox.com
<a href="http://www.mcs.net/~ajm">AJM's WWW page</a> or
<a href="http://www.pobox.com/~ajm">AJM's WWW page (portable link)</a>
Karl Denninger
In article <slrn54m3j...@enteract.com>,
>access (and, it seems, sponsorship) for your admittedly "expirimental"
>project would be grounds for litigation.
It very well might be, depending on the facts at the time. That's something
that will be decided if and when the time comes. Until then I will not
speculate over events which have not yet occurred.
>What I do think is that you're doing the bulk of those who do not favor
>the NSI monopoly a disservice by polarizing the issue, and adding
>confusion to the real issues.
There seems to have been no other way to get anyone's attention. Certainly,
after nearly a year goes by and all kinds of protest gets you nowhere,
bolder action is called for.
So we did that.
>I (and many of the people arguing vehemently with you) agree
>wholeheartedly with that. As you're aware, this is not the issue being
>raised with your TLD scheme.
On the contrary. We are in fact breaking it up. Right now. The results
are already visible in the form of better service from NSI. I've been
watching that factor quite closely, and the results are VISIBLE.
>>If you don't want to get on board, that's your choice, but what will you do
>>when your customers start asking for access to those domains?
>>Tell them to go stuff?
>
>We are an Internet Service Provider. .BIZ is not part of the Internet.
>It's that simple.
Really? If a domain called "xxx.biz" maps to an IP address, it certainly is
part of the Internet. That *your company* refuses to recognize the mapping
doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means you refuse to give your
customers access to that part of the Internet.
Neither you nor the IANA has a right to dictate what is an isn't part of the
"Internet".
Let me ask you a simple question:
Do you support email to "site.bitnet"?
If you do, then you ALREADY support domains which are NOT IANA sponsored,
and you do it thorugh EXPLICIT gateway statements in your sendmail
configuration -- a hack which is far less standard than what we are
proposing!
To be ethically and logically consistent, you need to remove that ruleset
from your sendmail configuration (assuming its there) right now!
>I think you do your project a disservice by suggesting that parties in
>disagreement with your (as yet unsettled) argument will somehow suffer for
>their lack of participation in it.
If your customers want access to those names, and you refuse to provide it
to them, I hope they recognize exactly where the problem is and why.
If they don't, or you mislead them, I will attempt to educate them through
every media at my disposal.
One way of doing that is showing them that if they were MCSNet customers
instead they could access those sites and names.
You can either lead, follow, or get run over. Your call.
>We are "firewalling" nothing from our customers. I'm sure you'll
>reconsider that argument, as it's a bit underhanded of you to suggest that
>our failure to actively participate in your project constitutes some
>willing denial of service to our customers.
But in fact you are doing that. Those names do exist, they are valid, and
in fact our registration procedure validates all entries FAR BEYOND what
NSI does at this time.
That is, EVERY domain in our eTLD system categories is GUARANTEED at the
time of registration to have functioning nameserver(s) returning valid,
authoritative SOA records for that zone.
NSI makes no such promise, although they could. But it would hurt their
business, since we find that the HUGE majority of requests in fact are
intended for other than providing legitimate service (you can't provide
legitimate service without a valid set of nameservers!)
In the future I expect to be verifying those entries on a regular basis, and
sending warnings (and/or removing) names which fail to pass that test. I
believe that it is absolutely critical that the DNS system be correct and
operating properly, and doing that means insuring that the zones which are
mapped have actual, functioning, nameservers operating to serve those names.
>In order for our nameservice to recognize your alternate top level
>domains, we would need to alter it's configuration with information
>provided by your organization. At this point in time, we are unwilling to
>do that, as, in this situation, such an action would seem to constitute
>our sponsorship of your project.
Which means you'll let customers who want to access those sites twist.
Thank you for agreeing with my previous point.
>>Means are available to PERMIT access which have absolutely ZERO chance of
>>screwing up your IANA-sponsored root links.
>
>We've never asserted that your root cache file would do anything to harm
>resolution of "traditional" top level domains.
Then why not support them? What POSSIBLE harm can come from it Tom?
Alan Miller
Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>We'd have over 100 operational domains right now if we accepted applications
>with misconfigured nameservers and VANITY registrations.
>
>But, unlike NSI, we don't.
Damn! You mean I can't register .ajm as a TLD? Man, that just ruins my
whole week.
ajm
Richard Sexton
In article <52eha6$a...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>In article <52egjb$g...@access5.digex.net>,
>I note that improved service from NSI has *already* come out of this. I am
>now getting .COM registrations back in about 12 hours, operational the next
I'm getting mixed results. I've got .net's back in 5 minutes, once
or twice, while others still take a week. Since they all come
from the same machine generated source (http://register.mydomain.com)
and are hand verified before they're passed on to the NIC, I seriously
doubt it's the content of the template.
The look on my face when a .NET came back complete in 5 minutes
was probably worthy of recodring for posterity, however.
--
Richard Sexton
ro...@cabal.org
Richard Sexton
In article <52f1qj$b...@shellx.best.com>,
Bryant Durrell <dur...@best.com> wrote:
>In article <52eqn2$a...@flash.noc.best.net>,
>Matthew Dillon <dil...@best.com> wrote:
>> Now, I can count the number of serious non-governmental organizations
>> wanting to run TLDs on one hand. In fact, I could be
>> 'Dillon Three Fingers' and the count would STILL fit on one hand.... and
>> the Alternic is one of them.
>
>
>NSI
>Alternic
>Simon Higgs' company, whose name I do not recall
>IO Design (Chris Ambler)
>Netnames
>Memra Software (Michael Dillon)
Let's not forgot VRx and http://register.mydomain.com
>It's very important to realize that there's no shortage of people who
>are capable of doing this; it's simply that many of them aren't
>attempting to unethically
Oh Bryant, really. You've told me many times you're doing this
because you don't like Karl because he flamed you when you
worked at Netcom or some damn thing. You're hardly being objective.
--
Richard Sexton
ro...@cabal.org
Jude Crouch
Alan Miller (a...@MCS.COM) wrote:
: Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
: >What is your REAL motivation here Tom?
: Karl, if you think sarcasm is call to stop reading issues from a person,
: what's this? Reason to cancel all articles from you on the local spool?
Unfortunately, you refer to a discussion in mcs.support which will not be
seen by most here at chi.internet.
Jude
--
Jude Crouch (jcr...@pobox.com) - Computing since 1967!
Crouch Enterprises - Telecom, Internet & Unix Consulting
Oak Park, IL 708-848-0145 URL: http://www.pobox.com/~jcrouch
Thomas H. Ptacek
26 Sep 1996 18:44:49 -0500 ka...@MCS.COM:
>Neither you nor the IANA has a right to dictate what is an isn't part of the
>"Internet".
... nor do you. The fact that there is no consensus on this issue prevents
us from supporting your registries. When such consensus is reached, we
will happily facilitate our customer's access to your sites.
Again, if your assertions are so correct, your argument stands up on it's
own, and doesn't benefit from the sort of coercion you're attempting by
suggesting that we'll lose customers by supporting your "eTLD" scheme.
We've got customers coming our of our ears. More than (recently) we've
been able to accept. I really doubt Tracy and Michael are going to fret
over the potential of you using your Denninger Powers to entrance our
customer base from us.
Just in case, we've erected several shielding devices to prevent your (as
we both know) all-too-effective mind rays from penetrating our network. We
are, as such, invulnerable to the orbital mind-control satellites that
carry the bulk of your argument to the net.
So, it's with great regret that I inform you that you'll have to use
reason, and not force, to convince us (and our customers) to support your
project. Our minds are entirely open, although I personally lean towards
the "orderly transition from monopoly" end of the spectrum (as opposed to
the "headlong charge into chaos" end of the spectrum [cheap shot]).
Right now, there's simply very, very little real value (outside of
politics) in resolving "eTLD" names. I'm sure it'll come as little
suprise to you that there's not much (any, in fact) demand for "eTLD"
resolution from our customers. Of course, to hear you talk, you'd think we
put ACLs on our routers to prevent people from learning about the concept
of new TLDs.
So, given the lack of value that your names add to our service, and the
extent to which this is a loaded, important issue, we've chosen to support
only what the net has, as a whole, decided to support.
When the desire for access to TLDs becomes booming, and consensus nears,
we will (of course) provide equal access to all popular registries. Of
course, at that point, agreement will have been reached anyways, rendering
this a moot point.
>If they don't, or you mislead them, I will attempt to educate them through
>every media at my disposal.
Go right ahead. I actually enjoy reading your posts, so I'll be the last
person in the world to stop you. Of course, if you spam us, we'll spam you
back, and it'll degenerate into a childish war that will leave our
servers, psyches, and sanity forever scarred. Neither of us want that.
>One way of doing that is showing them that if they were MCSNet customers
>instead they could access those sites and names.
Ok. Let me say, on behalf of Tracy and Mike and the rest of Team EnterAct,
that we totally admit to the fact that our customers can get access to the
four currently existing .BIZ sites, were they to purchase service from
MCS.
I'm sure the massive exodus of customers from our system will make my job
much easier.
>You can either lead, follow, or get run over. Your call.
Classssssy.
>>We are "firewalling" nothing from our customers. I'm sure you'll
>But in fact you are doing that. Those names do exist, they are valid, and
>in fact our registration procedure validates all entries FAR BEYOND what
>NSI does at this time.
Mr. Denninger, you've already seen one person on this thread asking if you
meant that we had packet filters in place preventing DNS queries to your
servers. You are (unintentionally, I'm sure) spreading misinformation
about the way we do business, and, given the fact that you're now aware of
that, your sense of ethics should dictate to you that what you're doing is
probably wrong.
Of course, I'm sure you didn't intend to have that happen, and that you're
simply making the point that we don't provide our customers access to your
new top level domains. Please clarify to the thread the fact that you did
not intend to say we were filtering DNS queries. We are not. Any of our
customers can just as easily use your DNS server to access your TLDs.
We'll do nothing to prevent that.
As I'm sure you're honorable enough to understand our quandary, I thank
you in advance for clearing this misunderstanding up.
>That is, EVERY domain in our eTLD system categories is GUARANTEED at the
>time of registration to have functioning nameserver(s) returning valid,
>authoritative SOA records for that zone.
That's very admirable. I never asserted that you weren't capable of
running a good registry.
>>In order for our nameservice to recognize your alternate top level
>>domains, we would need to alter it's configuration with information
>>provided by your organization. At this point in time, we are unwilling to
>Which means you'll let customers who want to access those sites twist.
I really don't think any of our customers are "twisting" because of our
decision. When Yahoo and CNN register .BIZ names, and drop their .COM
registrations, we'll be taking you much more seriously.
>Thank you for agreeing with my previous point.
You're very welcome, sir.
>>We've never asserted that your root cache file would do anything to harm
>>resolution of "traditional" top level domains.
>Then why not support them? What POSSIBLE harm can come from it Tom?
The center will not hold, and mere anarchy will be unleashed upon the
Internet. A rough beast (in bellicose Aardvark patriarch form), it's time
come at last, will slouch towards MCS to be born.
Rahul Dhesi
> Now, on the other side of the coin... The Alternic is going to have to
> go through the IANA's process, when they finally agree on one, in order
> to be able to maintain the high ground.
Regrettably, neither the IANA nor the Alternic is addressing the real
issue: Changing directory services should not require changing names.
The right solution would be to allow any domain name to get top-level
name service from any organization. Somebody opting to register in
.BIZ, for example, should not be tied to any one service provider.
This is the funamental problem, and I don't see people even recognizing
it, let alone solving it.
So long as there is a single government-sponsored registry, it becomes
the background and the choice is then at the second level -- and that's
the way things are today. Once you have xxx.COM, you can get name
service anywhere. Modulo the legal silliness of the InterNIC, which
I think the NSF ought to be addressing and is neglecting its
duties in not doing so, the existing system is a good one.
Enter the new INANA proposal, which mixes up two totally different
issues:
- What new top-level domains should exist
- Who should control them
Nobody should control an entire top-level domain. Let all who wish
register in them, and let them get name service anywhere they wish.
Directory services have no business also providing name service.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@rahul.net>
"please ignore Dhesi" -- Mark Crispin <m...@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Thomas H. Ptacek
26 Sep 1996 22:39:16 -0500 ka...@MCS.COM:
>Nor is there consensus on the IANA plans!
Let me amend my previous statement.
When there SEEMS to be a consensus among those I speak to on the net that
your plan is a good idea, and when a significant fraction of all
nameservers carry your root cache file, I will take you more seriously.
I suspect I care little more for the IANA than you do.
>Mix that up with your assertions, and then come back with what you really
>think is going on here.
<mixing>
Same deal. It seems to me like you're trying to get ahead of the game and
grab a TLD before anyone else has a chance to get it.
Of course, that's my perspective, and my perspective quite often isn't
fully in synch with what's really going on.
>>Again, if your assertions are so correct, your argument stands up on it's
>>own, and doesn't benefit from the sort of coercion you're attempting by
>>suggesting that we'll lose customers by supporting your "eTLD" scheme.
>
>can if you're on MCS (or using our nameservers). If you think there won't
>be (or isn't) content that is reachable only through eTLDs, you're nuts.
You neglected to address my point. Again, as I said before, if you're so
far in the right, your argument will stand up on it's own merit, and won't
require veiled (and unveiled) threats of customer reaction to gain
support.
>>project. Our minds are entirely open, although I personally lean towards
>>the "orderly transition from monopoly" end of the spectrum (as opposed to
>>the "headlong charge into chaos" end of the spectrum [cheap shot]).
>Of course its a cheap shot. But that's typical of you Tom.
Wow! "Of course it's a cheap shot. <cheap shot>". Quite witty. =)
You don't know me well enough to say what is and is not typical of me.
Even if you are right, it'd be appreciated if you'd refrain from
generalizing.
>There is no orderly transition underway. Its convenient to PRETEND that
>there is, but tell me -- if that's true, why is the IANA trying to go
>around the IAB and IETF procedures?
Orbital mind control lasers.
You're missing my point. As far as I can tell, you claimed .BIZ before
anyone else on the net even knew it was possible to do so; you were able
to do this because, when you claimed .BIZ, it WASN'T possible to do so. I
do not see what gives you, rather than any other person on the net with a
nameserver, the right to claim an entire top level domain.
Furthermore, I am totally in agreement with those expressing concerns that
what you're doing is going to lead to total chaos when more than one
person lays claim to a single TLD. I see no process and no agreement among
people on the net as to how TLDs are claimed and operating.
I'm also sympathetic to those who are afraid that unrestrained TLD
expansion is going to turn the top level domain namespace into a morass,
make things harder to navigate, and overly complicate things.
>Answer *that* question and you're getting closer to the truth.
Address *those* concerns and you're getting closer to quite a few people's
support.
>On the contrary. If a customer uses the configuration information YOU
>PROVIDE THEM, they cannot resolve or "find" those sites. There's nothing
>"misinforming" about that. Its the truth, and as long as you refuse to
>configure eDNS, it will remain so.
Mr. Denninger, you just totally ignored every word I said. I'm sure you're
having a very busy day, and probably don't have time to read entire
paragraphs at a time. I can understand that. However, I still feel as if
you've unintentionally wronged my employer, and would really appreciate it
if you would set the record straight as to whether or not you meant what
you said.
In case you don't remember, let me restate.
You made a statement claiming that we were "firewalling" "eTLD" DNS
queries. This gave at least one person the impression that we had *set up
packet filters* preventing DNS queries to your nameservers. I'm sure this
is not what you meant, but every time I've asked whether that's the case,
you've responded with an assertion that indirectly confirms your previous
statement.
>That you can provide this additional service *AT NO RISK TO YOUR NETWORK'S
>STABILITY* isn't lost on us -- and we hope it isn't lost on your customers
>either.
We can do quite a few things at no risk to our network's stability. That
doesn't mean we're obligated to do them.
>You might ask yourself why BEST recently added the support.....
<shrug>
That's BEST. We're not BEST. We don't care to be BEST. We're EnterAct,
we've got our own opinions, and they don't currently agree with yours (if
they did, I'd have your root.cache file in my nameserver root directory).
>Will you tell your customers, in your signup information and through your
>technical desk, about this *proactively*? On your web pages? In your
>customer information packet?
We will gladly explain to any customer that asks us about it how to
resolve eTLD names. I think it's probably your responsibility at this
point (you being the one trying to convince US that your project, which
takes a sizeable, choice chunk out of the top level domain namespace, is
worthwhile) to convince everyone, our customers included, that what you're
doing is worthwhile.
If you're adding all the content you claim to be adding, that probably
won't be difficult, and there's no issue.
>>I really don't think any of our customers are "twisting" because of our
>>decision. When Yahoo and CNN register .BIZ names, and drop their .COM
>Oh yes, just like they'll register in .US.
>Give me a break.
No, I won't, because you just ignored my point. To date, NOBODY here has
asked AT ALL about our policy regarding support of new top level domains.
NOBODY has asked how to resolve a .BIZ or .XXX site. I don't know that
anyone here cares. Yet.
Again, given the lack of value your plan has for our customers at this
point, why should we actively sponsor it?
Given that our customers really have no opinion on this matter (none that
they've stated to me, at least), it's pretty much up to the people running
the system to decide. Oh! Wait! I run that part of the system! That leaves
it (drum roll) pretty much up to me to decide!
I personally think what you're doing is irresponsible, unfair, and
unethical. Perhaps I don't know enough about the situation to make those
comments, but what I DO know right now is not enough to convince me to
support your registries.
Would you like us to put a web page up to take a poll of how many of our
users support your plan?
>I have no idea what other services are going to show up -- but I do know
>that we processed a number of registration requests today for people, and
>the trend is in the right direction.
Well. Good luck.
Stephen Schmidt
Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.COM) wrote:
: In article <slrn54m3j...@enteract.com>,
: Thomas H. Ptacek <tq...@rdist.org> wrote:
: >26 Sep 1996 17:00:55 -0500 ka...@MCS.COM:
: >You explicitly stated that a failure of the IANA to permit you continued
: >access (and, it seems, sponsorship) for your admittedly "expirimental"
: >project would be grounds for litigation.
: It very well might be, depending on the facts at the time. That's something
: that will be decided if and when the time comes. Until then I will not
: speculate over events which have not yet occurred.
Brief question: What will you do when the folks who applied for the,
say, .BIZ TLD through the appropriate NIC/IANA structure turn out to have
a prior claim to the TLD through filing dates? Sue? Get sued? Have a
party?
Steve
--
_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/ Stephen E. Schmidt
_/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/ President, Access Division
_/ _/ _/ _/ American Information Systems, Inc.
_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ E-mail: st...@ais.net, http://www.ais.net
For my PGP public key, email me with the
subject "pgp request"
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
David Collier-Brown
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> There's a difference between breaking a monopoly with a sledgehammer, and
> dismantling it in a responsible way.
>
> The latter is happening (albeit a tad slow, or so it seems), but then that's
> because a greater-than-zero number of lawyers is involved.
>
> The former is simply irresponsible, both to the customers of the new fake
> domains some people are setting up and to the Internet community at large.
There is a very old joke about the cheif muleskinner (mule trainer) addressing
a new class of prospective employees:
`Never mistreat your Mule'', he said, and then picked up a two-by-four
and slammed the mule across its forehead. The students ghasped in shock,
and one started to speak... to be interrupted by the cheif saying
``You do have to get it's attention though''.
While debating Karl is like a whack across the head, he **is** trying to do something
usefull. The NIC operator is bahaving much like a mule, pulling stubbornly in an
inappropriate dircetion.
My worry is about people **less** capable setting up competing .biz registries!
>
> For that reason alone, I sincerely hope that whoever awards .biz after the
> legal tangle is untangled will _not_ give it to those who are playing with
> this (among others, it seems) pseudo-top-level domains right now.
I'd recommend treating the experimental registries as such, and blessing them
**and their operators** if they can meet the criteria. I'd really not like to register
in .biz experimentally and find a compeditor had ``got'' the domain I was using after
the dust settled. I'd be disappointed if .biz failed entirely, but enraged if it was
wiped out and then recreated by someone else!
Mind you, I think .biz is a silly idea (see
http://java.science.yorku.ca/~davecb/tld/experiment.html) and would
prefer .phil (:-))
--dave
--
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify some people
185 Ellerslie Ave., | and astonish the rest. -- Mark Twain
Willowdale, Ontario | dav...@hobbes.ss.org, unicaat.yorku.ca
N2M 1Y3. 416-223-8968 | http://java.science.yorku.ca/~davecb
David Collier-Brown
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> The right solution would be to allow any domain name to get top-level
> name service from any organization. Somebody opting to register in
> .BIZ, for example, should not be tied to any one service provider.
http://www.higgs.com/simon/net/draft-higgs-tld-cat-recent.txt for a
concrete proposal and
http://java.science.yorku.ca/~davecb/tld/experiment.html for my (long,
boring) analysis and reccomendations.
Matt Hucke
In article <52euen$g...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>What do you call the very real turn-around change at the InterNIC in the last
>four weeks?
Perhaps they've improved their software. Some companies actually have
people on staff who can do that.
>If you don't want to get on board, that's your choice, but what will you do
>when your customers start asking for access to those domains?
>
>Tell them to go stuff?
If a customer ever does ask, then we can simply tell them to point to
your nameservers. That way, the one customer who wants these domains
can have them, without their provider having to appear to be
supporting your plans.
>I thought that Enteract was interested in providing the *best* service? How
>do you square that with firewalling off these DNS names DELIBERATELY from
>your customers? That is, by the way, precisely what you've odne.
If you don't know what "firewall" means, then please don't use the word.
Matt Hucke
>>>We'd have over 100 operational domains right now if we accepted applications
>>>with misconfigured nameservers and VANITY registrations.
>>>But, unlike NSI, we don't.
>>
>>How do you define a "vanity" registration, and how do you determine
>>which of the incoming registrations are "vanity" domains?
>Gee, Matt, what do you call a domain which has no authoritative returns for
>the SOA records on the Internet?
>
>I call it a vanity registration.
I call it "misconfigured".
Above, you said "misconfigured nameservers and VANITY registrations",
which would seem to imply that they were two different reasons to
reject a name. Now that you've said what you mean by "vanity", I am
in agreement that it is a good thing to reject such registrations.
Matt Hucke
In article <52fhic$o...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>Last time I checked, you could specify any nameservers you wanted at any sites
>you wish for that service.
Let's consider Foo Corporation, who run the .FOO TLD. A customer of
theirs registers "acme.foo", with FOO also providing name service, web
server hosting, and services for their dialup accounts. After a few
months, Acme and Foo have a heated disagreement (over customer service
or billing issues perhaps). Acme moves their web server across town
to "Sam's Web Hosting, Inc.", and sends in a modify domain request to
Foo, saying that the nameservers and tech contact are now Sam's.
What if Foo refuses to release the domain? Foo claims that payment is
owed, which may or may not be true, and meanwhile they've shut down
Acme's server and refused to change the A record. Perhaps Foo will
even refuse to change the domain out of spite, even if there is no
billing dispute. They inform Acme that Acme no longer has use of this
domain.
Acme now faces some ugly choices - changing domain names entirely
(reprinting all stationery, informing their customers of the new
domain, changing the current ad campaign, etc.). Or they can remain a
customer of Foo, having to put up with shitty service because that's
the only way they can keep the name. They can sue Foo, but that would
take too much time and money.
To register a domain under a privately-held TLD, a company must have
absolute faith in the ethics of the registration service. If they
purchase additional services there, they run the risk of a dispute
over those other services provoking the provider to hold their domain
hostage, or simply discontinue it.
>I don't know of any organization currently running a TLD which insists that
>you be "tied" to one service provider. Except, of course, being tied to the
>price of being in that TLD.
Officially, they don't. We'll have to wait and see if any of these
organizations would act as described above.
>This will NOT change with shared registries. In fact, the problme will be
>made worse, as coordination between multiple entities is NOT free, and that
>cost will end up being passed to the customer one way or another.
It will cost more, but the customer will be protected from theft of
his domain by the TLD holder.
>If you have *lots* of choices for the TLD to register in, then the point
>becomes moot, because if you don't like one organization/person/company,
>you can always choose another.
>
>Saying "but one is better" doesn't change the facts. They're better, in all
>likelihood, because they spent their money on the infrastructure.
One may be better because of having a name that will be easily
guessed. If someone was looking for Fnord Corporation, they'd first
try fnord.com, if that wasn't the right fnord then fnord.biz or
fnord.inc or fnord.corp might be the next choices - certainly they'd
be more likely to be tried than fnord.qnp.
Matt Hucke
In article <52er9q$a...@flash.noc.best.net>,
Matthew Dillon <dil...@best.com> wrote:
> I think you are missing the point. 100%, 95%, 90% ... if it's more
> then 0% it's significant.
A few percent here and there isn't really significant, and he probably
does have something like 90% using the rogue DNS. However, I felt it
was important to point out that 100% was an exaggeration.
> "I POLLED xxxx SITES AND FOUND ....", verses what I hear from the
> otherside, which is more on the order of "MY OPINION IS THAT YOU ARE
> FULL OF HORSESHIT, BUT I HAVEN'T DONE ANY TESTS TO CONFIRM THAT".
My opinion is that regardless of the numbers, Alternic's land grab and
sue-sue-sue mentality is unethical, and such persons should not be
running TLDs.
Rob Linxweiler
In article <52f4eo$9...@mars.mcs.com>, Alan Miller <a...@MCS.COM> wrote:
[snip]
>ajm (trying to inject a slight voice of reason)
I'm sorry, but that sentiment has no place in this newsgroup.
--
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob Linxweiler
rob...@mcs.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Denninger
In article <52gmof$j...@eve.enteract.com>,
Matt Hucke <hu...@enteract.com> wrote:
>In article <52fhic$o...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>>Last time I checked, you could specify any nameservers you wanted at any sites
>>you wish for that service.
>
>Let's consider Foo Corporation, who run the .FOO TLD. A customer of
>theirs registers "acme.foo", with FOO also providing name service, web
>server hosting, and services for their dialup accounts. After a few
>months, Acme and Foo have a heated disagreement (over customer service
>or billing issues perhaps). Acme moves their web server across town
>to "Sam's Web Hosting, Inc.", and sends in a modify domain request to
>Foo, saying that the nameservers and tech contact are now Sam's.
Actually, in our case you just go back into the web form, fill it out with
the new information and the required authentication, and the system does it
for you within an hour -- but ok, let's assume there's a manual process or
a person in there somewhere (to make it interesting).
>What if Foo refuses to release the domain? Foo claims that payment is
>owed, which may or may not be true, and meanwhile they've shut down
>Acme's server and refused to change the A record. Perhaps Foo will
>even refuse to change the domain out of spite, even if there is no
>billing dispute. They inform Acme that Acme no longer has use of this
>domain.
>
>Acme now faces some ugly choices - changing domain names entirely
>(reprinting all stationery, informing their customers of the new
>domain, changing the current ad campaign, etc.). Or they can remain a
>customer of Foo, having to put up with shitty service because that's
>the only way they can keep the name. They can sue Foo, but that would
>take too much time and money.
That's funny -- people don't think that suing the NIC takes too much time
and money when they effectively give your domain to someone else (without
legal justification at least some of the time -- their own specific
judgement only).
>To register a domain under a privately-held TLD, a company must have
>absolute faith in the ethics of the registration service. If they
>purchase additional services there, they run the risk of a dispute
>over those other services provoking the provider to hold their domain
>hostage, or simply discontinue it.
And NSI has not done this? What makes this ANY different than the existing
domains? Hint: Why do you think NSI has been sued a number of times?
>>This will NOT change with shared registries. In fact, the problme will be
>>made worse, as coordination between multiple entities is NOT free, and that
>>cost will end up being passed to the customer one way or another.
>
>It will cost more, but the customer will be protected from theft of
>his domain by the TLD holder.
No they won't. One of the registry authorities can still cause the
modification to be either blocked or reversed.
>>Saying "but one is better" doesn't change the facts. They're better, in all
>>likelihood, because they spent their money on the infrastructure.
>
>One may be better because of having a name that will be easily
>guessed. If someone was looking for Fnord Corporation, they'd first
>try fnord.com, if that wasn't the right fnord then fnord.biz or
>fnord.inc or fnord.corp might be the next choices - certainly they'd
>be more likely to be tried than fnord.qnp.
Sigh... its far more likely that you'd to go Altavista and find them that
way.
Go look at the very real statistics on how people find web sites (they do
exist). Few people (as a percentage) "guess".
Karl Denninger
In article <52foog$8...@news.ais.net>,
Stephen Schmidt <st...@eagle.ais.net> wrote:
>Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.COM) wrote:
>: In article <slrn54m3j...@enteract.com>,
>: Thomas H. Ptacek <tq...@rdist.org> wrote:
>: >26 Sep 1996 17:00:55 -0500 ka...@MCS.COM:
>: >You explicitly stated that a failure of the IANA to permit you continued
>: >access (and, it seems, sponsorship) for your admittedly "expirimental"
>: >project would be grounds for litigation.
>
>: It very well might be, depending on the facts at the time. That's something
>: that will be decided if and when the time comes. Until then I will not
>: speculate over events which have not yet occurred.
>
>say, .BIZ TLD through the appropriate NIC/IANA structure turn out to have
>a prior claim to the TLD through filing dates? Sue? Get sued? Have a
>party?
We have that claim due to the filing dates and prior use (10 years worth) on
the Internet.
Learn the history, and you will understand.
Karl Denninger
In article <slrn54mlt...@enteract.com>,
>>Nor is there consensus on the IANA plans!
>
>Let me amend my previous statement.
>
>When there SEEMS to be a consensus among those I speak to on the net that
>your plan is a good idea, and when a significant fraction of all
>nameservers carry your root cache file, I will take you more seriously.
I guess it depends on the group you run with. Its easy to surround yourself
with bigots on any side of any issue on the net -- if you don't know that by
now, you haven't been online long enough.
><mixing>
>
>Same deal. It seems to me like you're trying to get ahead of the game and
>grab a TLD before anyone else has a chance to get it.
On the contrary. Nobody else is prevented to getting in line and doing
exactly what we've done -- setting up OPERATIONAL registry services and
having them available to people.
If you do that, and make the effort, I do believe that creates a prior-use
claim. So do our attorneys, the Alternic's attorneys, and lots of attorneys,
by the way.
This is *generally* how this kind of thing ends up being decided -- and in
fact, it was how the whole domain controversy was decided (first use) until
the NIC decided to get into the business of being a court. The folly of
that path has, I believe, been adequately demonstrated by now with all the
lawsuits against them that have been filed.
>You neglected to address my point. Again, as I said before, if you're so
>far in the right, your argument will stand up on it's own merit, and won't
>require veiled (and unveiled) threats of customer reaction to gain
>support.
Sorry, Tom, but content and customer desire drives the net. You can preach
from the rafters, but its irrelavent. If the content is there, then the
IANA loses immediately.
The content is being developed, and some is already online. The game's
afoot, and the IANA is pissed as all hell because they *know* that once
these TLDs gain use and interesting content, there is absolutely zero they
can do about the situation.
Why? Because they *are not a government*. The ISOC specifically disclaims
governance ability and they chartered the IANA.
Again, if you've been following the debate you'd know all of this by now.
>You don't know me well enough to say what is and is not typical of me.
I know what I see here and in your other communications with me.
>You're missing my point. As far as I can tell, you claimed .BIZ before
>anyone else on the net even knew it was possible to do so; you were able
>to do this because, when you claimed .BIZ, it WASN'T possible to do so.
On the contrary. I claimed .BIZ because we have 10+ years of prior use on
the Internet of this namespace. You were in GRADE SCHOOL when the "biz"
newsgroups were first initiated on the Internet. I was the person who
initiated those groups.
Please learn the history before you make commentary without basis.
>do not see what gives you, rather than any other person on the net with a
>nameserver, the right to claim an entire top level domain.
10 years of prior use and organization?
>Furthermore, I am totally in agreement with those expressing concerns that
>what you're doing is going to lead to total chaos when more than one
>person lays claim to a single TLD. I see no process and no agreement among
>people on the net as to how TLDs are claimed and operating.
First come, first-served is the only way you'll resolve this. If someone
disagrees with the first-use priority, then if they think its worth a lawsuit
that's the appropriate venue to work through.
Challenging someone's claim to a TLD should be *extremely* difficult. I see
no problem with requiring it to go through legal process -- in fact, that's
the only *fair and impartial* process we have in this country (pistols at 20
paces went out of style a couple of hundred years ago).
>I'm also sympathetic to those who are afraid that unrestrained TLD
>expansion is going to turn the top level domain namespace into a morass,
>make things harder to navigate, and overly complicate things.
See the real studies. People don't guess names by and large. The net needs
a "white and yellow pages" service anyway -- that's orthogonal to this
discussion.
>You made a statement claiming that we were "firewalling" "eTLD" DNS
>queries. This gave at least one person the impression that we had *set up
>packet filters* preventing DNS queries to your nameservers. I'm sure this
>is not what you meant, but every time I've asked whether that's the case,
>you've responded with an assertion that indirectly confirms your previous
>statement.
No, I've said that your *standard, provided configuration to customers*
ignores the eTLD domains, and your *NAMESERVERS* refuse to forward queries
for those names to others. That means that your NAMESERVERS effectively ARE
firewalling the traffic -- you have *deliberately* configured your hardware
(as have many others) to refuse to forward these queries.
Firewalls don't have to be placed in a router, as I'm sure you're aware.
>>Will you tell your customers, in your signup information and through your
>>technical desk, about this *proactively*? On your web pages? In your
>>customer information packet?
>
>We will gladly explain to any customer that asks us about it how to
>resolve eTLD names. I think it's probably your responsibility at this
>point (you being the one trying to convince US that your project, which
>takes a sizeable, choice chunk out of the top level domain namespace, is
>worthwhile) to convince everyone, our customers included, that what you're
>doing is worthwhile.
So you don't mind me sending a mass-email to your customer base to inform
them? Or will you list a pointer to our web page (or the Alternic's for
that matter) on YOUR web page so that people are at least *AWARE* of this?
The reason you don't get the calls is that most people on the net *DON'T
EVEN KNOW ABOUT THIS*!
>If you're adding all the content you claim to be adding, that probably
>won't be difficult, and there's no issue.
You've got that right. "www.orgies.xxx" comes to mind.
>NOBODY has asked how to resolve a .BIZ or .XXX site. I don't know that
>anyone here cares. Yet.
Of course, you haven't exactly informed them there were these choices out
there either, have you?
>I personally think what you're doing is irresponsible, unfair, and
>unethical. Perhaps I don't know enough about the situation to make those
>comments, but what I DO know right now is not enough to convince me to
>support your registries.
You don't know *anything* about the history or this situation, as you have
amply demonstrated.
>Would you like us to put a web page up to take a poll of how many of our
>users support your plan?
With your one-sided, biased evaluation as its only content? Or are you
willing to allow me to write an *unedited* page with exactly the same
exposure as your opinion to be included in that page?
Richard Sexton
In article <52h289$b...@shellx.best.com>,
Bryant Durrell <dur...@best.com> wrote:
>In article <52h17m$a...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>You've still never explained why you're mapping Usenet namespace to
>DNS namespace.
Huh ? So ? Is there a problem with this ?
>I *devoutly* hope BIZ. doesn't end up looking like biz.*. Has anyone
>looked at biz.* lately? MLMs as far as the eye can see, and barely a
>shred of useful content.
You'd rather those MLM's were in comp ?
--
Richard Sexton
ro...@cabal.org
Bryant Durrell
>Thomas H. Ptacek <tq...@rdist.org> wrote:
>>You're missing my point. As far as I can tell, you claimed .BIZ before
>>anyone else on the net even knew it was possible to do so; you were able
>>to do this because, when you claimed .BIZ, it WASN'T possible to do so.
>
>On the contrary. I claimed .BIZ because we have 10+ years of prior use on
>the Internet of this namespace. You were in GRADE SCHOOL when the "biz"
>newsgroups were first initiated on the Internet. I was the person who
>initiated those groups.
You've still never explained why you're mapping Usenet namespace to
DNS namespace.
>Please learn the history before you make commentary without basis.
>
>>do not see what gives you, rather than any other person on the net with a
>>nameserver, the right to claim an entire top level domain.
>
>10 years of prior use and organization?
I *devoutly* hope BIZ. doesn't end up looking like biz.*. Has anyone
looked at biz.* lately? MLMs as far as the eye can see, and barely a
shred of useful content.
--
Jude Crouch
Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.COM) wrote:
: In article <52foog$8...@news.ais.net>,: >: In article <slrn54m3j...@enteract.com>,
: >: Thomas H. Ptacek <tq...@rdist.org> wrote:
: >: >26 Sep 1996 17:00:55 -0500 ka...@MCS.COM:
: >: >You explicitly stated that a failure of the IANA to permit you continued
: >: >access (and, it seems, sponsorship) for your admittedly "expirimental"
: >: >project would be grounds for litigation.
: >
: >: It very well might be, depending on the facts at the time. That's something
: >: that will be decided if and when the time comes. Until then I will not
: >: speculate over events which have not yet occurred.
: >Brief question: What will you do when the folks who applied for the,
: >a prior claim to the TLD through filing dates? Sue? Get sued? Have a
: >party?
: We have that claim due to the filing dates and prior use (10 years worth) on
: the Internet.
: Learn the history, and you will understand.
Is there case law on this? Can you point me in the right direction?
Is it copyright, trademark, patent, or what?
Joe Adams
:In article <52foog$8...@news.ais.net>,
:Stephen Schmidt <st...@eagle.ais.net> wrote:
:>Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.COM) wrote:
:>: In article <slrn54m3j...@enteract.com>,
:>: Thomas H. Ptacek <tq...@rdist.org> wrote:
:>: >26 Sep 1996 17:00:55 -0500 ka...@MCS.COM:
:>: >You explicitly stated that a failure of the IANA to permit you continued
:>: >access (and, it seems, sponsorship) for your admittedly "expirimental"
:>: >project would be grounds for litigation.
:>
:>: It very well might be, depending on the facts at the time. That's
something
:>: that will be decided if and when the time comes. Until then I will not
:>: speculate over events which have not yet occurred.
:>
:>Brief question: What will you do when the folks who applied for the,
:>say, .BIZ TLD through the appropriate NIC/IANA structure turn out to have
:>a prior claim to the TLD through filing dates? Sue? Get sued? Have a
:>party?
:
:We have that claim due to the filing dates
Are you saying that you filed appropiately and correctly for the TLD .BIZ
within the NIC/IANA structure first Mr. Denninger?
:and prior use (10 years worth) on the Internet.
Many people have as much Internet/Computer experience without a combative
style.
:Learn the history, and you will understand.
:
:--
:Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.Net)
Heres some of that "history" Lets look at it and keep it in mind during
this experiment.
If Karl history is a criteria for evaluation then the numerous numbers of
complaints by current and former MCS customers about MCS system problems
should be part of the evaluation. Your company has a record of a large
volume of complaints by customers online within the last year and further
back. That is much more than that of all other Chicago area ISP companys
combined. All one has to do is read chi.internet over the last year to
verify that. Its a matter of record Mr. Denninger and you can't erase
those number of valid complaints no matter how much you may want to.
Other people have mentioned things that you were gung-ho on in the past
but then you dropped when there was problems with them or you had a
falling out with people.
Other factors such as your willingness to be so argumentative and
combative should
also be taken into account in any evaluation. I could post volumes of your
wild rants.
"People that learn the record/history, will understand indeed" :-)
Other knowledgable folks please feel free to comment on this history/record.
Sincerely,
Joe
Matt Hucke
In article <52h047$9...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>
>Actually, in our case you just go back into the web form, fill it out with
>the new information and the required authentication, and the system does it
>for you within an hour
Unless the registry has placed a flag in the record for this
particular domain indicating that all changes must be manually approved.
Or perhaps Foo will simply change the password for Acme.
>And NSI has not done this? What makes this ANY different than the existing
>domains? Hint: Why do you think NSI has been sued a number of times?
NSI are corrupt, and people deal with them only because of their
monopoly position for the widely-recognized domains.
Your privately-held-TLD model has the same problems and does not have
any protection for a domain holder being cut off by an unethical TLD
holder. It's just as flawed as NSI's policies.
>>It will cost more, but the customer will be protected from theft of
>>his domain by the TLD holder.
>
>No they won't. One of the registry authorities can still cause the
>modification to be either blocked or reversed.
That depends on how the relationships between registries in the shared
TLD are structured. There'd have to be some form of agreement that a
registry would agree to, that they would not block changes against the
wishes of the legitimate holder of the domain.
>Sigh... its far more likely that you'd to go Altavista and find them that
>way.
>Go look at the very real statistics on how people find web sites (they do
>exist). Few people (as a percentage) "guess".
"http://foobar.corp", printed a foot high on the side of a CTA bus, is
far more memorable than "http://foobar.zdxa".
If you don't believe this to be true, why did you choose BIZ and CORP
for the TLDs you wish to run? Why not MCS1 or XYZ or AAA?
You chose them because biz and corp are logical and easy to remember,
and therefore are far more valuable than some random 3-4 character string.
Olaf Titz
Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
> >I wonder if other companys will be allowed to register the .biz
> >domain or would this be a monopoly by MCS? A monopoly like that
> >would not be a good thing.
> You can choose .BIZ from us, or .COM from NSI, or others...
And perhaps .BIZ from a number of other ATLD providers? _That_ was the
question.
The whole point of the alternate TLDs as some people implement them by
now is that it breaks two fundamental assumptions about domain names:
that domains are unique, and that domains are visible from everywhere
without users' hassle. If this goes on like it appears, in two years
we'll again have maps to update every week or so - TLD maps.
olaf
--
___ Olaf...@inka.de or @{stud,informatik}.uni-karlsruhe.de ____
__ o <URL:http://www.inka.de/~bigred/> <IRC:praetorius>
__/<_ >> Just as long as the wheels keep on turning round
_)>(_)______________ I will live for the groove 'til the sun goes down << ____
Bill Watts
In article <52gmof$j...@eve.enteract.com>,
Matt Hucke <hu...@enteract.com> wrote:
>Let's consider Foo Corporation, who run the .FOO TLD. A customer of
>theirs registers "acme.foo", with FOO also providing name service, web
>server hosting, and services for their dialup accounts. After a few
If Acme has $2000, Acme will obtain the .ACME TLD before they bother with
Foo Corporation.
>
>One may be better because of having a name that will be easily
>guessed. If someone was looking for Fnord Corporation, they'd first
>try fnord.com, if that wasn't the right fnord then fnord.biz or
>fnord.inc or fnord.corp might be the next choices - certainly they'd
>be more likely to be tried than fnord.qnp.
You overlooked that, the moment the alternative TLD genie got out of the
bottle, Fnord Corporation demanded the right to run the .FNORD TLD, so
that its customers, suppliers, shareholders, managers and employees could
find and identify themselves appropriately.
Fnord Corporation will not register in somebody else's TLD in 1997 for the
same reasons that it does not use www.momandpop-isp.net/~Fnord as its web
address in 1996.
Bryant Durrell
In article <52h4ue$4...@gold.interlog.com>,
Richard Sexton <ric...@interlog.com> wrote:
>In article <52h289$b...@shellx.best.com>,
>Bryant Durrell <dur...@best.com> wrote:
>
>>You've still never explained why you're mapping Usenet namespace to
>>DNS namespace.
>
I don't know. Karl feels the legal claims he can make because of this
mapping will hold up in court, so I'm curious as to whether there's any
reason to map Usenet namespace to DNS namespace other than that they're
both related to the Internet. Given the cluefulness of the average
American judge about these issues, that may be enough. It is a
sufficiently non-obvious mapping, however, that I'm interested in an
explanation -- especially since he's claimed k12 as well. Who set up
the original k12.* hierarchy?
>>I *devoutly* hope BIZ. doesn't end up looking like biz.*. Has anyone
>>looked at biz.* lately? MLMs as far as the eye can see, and barely a
>>shred of useful content.
>
>You'd rather those MLM's were in comp ?
Not in the least. If Karl's intentions were to create biz.* as a
ghetto for MLMs, that's keen by me. Does this mean that BIZ. will
serve the same purpose, or was that a total non sequiter?
Matt Hucke
In article <52hgbu$5...@access5.digex.net>,
Bill Watts <po...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
>You overlooked that, the moment the alternative TLD genie got out of the
>bottle, Fnord Corporation demanded the right to run the .FNORD TLD, so
>that its customers, suppliers, shareholders, managers and employees could
>find and identify themselves appropriately.
That would reduce DNS to a flat namespace, far more chaotic than
anything we're seeing now. It's the inevitable result if AlterNIC is
allowed to prevail.
Stephen Schmidt
Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.COM) wrote:
[tons removed]
: >You're missing my point. As far as I can tell, you claimed .BIZ before
: >anyone else on the net even knew it was possible to do so; you were able
: >to do this because, when you claimed .BIZ, it WASN'T possible to do so.
: On the contrary. I claimed .BIZ because we have 10+ years of prior use on
: the Internet of this namespace. You were in GRADE SCHOOL when the "biz"
: newsgroups were first initiated on the Internet. I was the person who
: initiated those groups.
Interesting. You claim a TLD based on a newsgroup structure? Am I
reading that correctly?
Bill Watts
In article <52eha6$a...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
List of 4 goals:
>1) Drive the process towards one of free competition and *improved
> service at lower cost* for the customer.
You assume there will remain an active market for domain registration.
There is free competition today for subdomain registration, and it makes
no difference to the lack of competition for domain registration. If there
is free competition tomorrow for domain registration, what difference
would it make if there is no competition for registering a TLD.
>
>2) Force changes in policy regarding disputes, or failing that, giving
> people a *choice* of dispute resolution policies (through different
> registries).
Somewhat illusory, since any dispute not resolved to the satisfaction of
both sides ultimately ends up in a real world court, no matter from where
it originated.
>
>3) Partially solve the trademark problems by making the iTLD namespace
> two-dimensional (trademarks are three dimensional -- we cannot force
> the third dimension on TLDs, but some registries may impose it
> on their own). Right now we have a ONE dimensional namespace, which
> is why there are all kinds of disputes (the current system is two
> dimensions out of whack with reality)
>
Somewhat delusionary, because there is no way that the number of TLDs can
be restrained once that level is available. And to borrow an example,
there is only one .UNITED TLD, and the same issue will arise as to whether
it goes to United Airlines or United VanLines.
>4) Insure that no single entity (including the IANA) is able to impose
> monopoly conditions, including fees and taxes, on the DNS (or IP for
> that matter) namespace, which we argue belongs to the people -- not
> four (or is it three, or two?) guys out at USC in California.
>
What do these words mean? You say namespace "belongs to the people" and
it must be "insured" that no "single entity" controls it. Somebody has to
assign TLDs. "The people" will want their own TLDs just as they want
their own .com domains today. Who is going to "insure" that the somebody
that assigns TLDs doesn't impose "conditions?" Only a sovereign authority
backed by police powers and a binding justice system can "insure" the
"peoples" rights.
I don't think you mean to call for the creation of an Internet Bureau at
the FCC. Yet, whoever is assigning TLDs will have exactly the unchecked
market power that InterNIC has today.
>I'd be willing to bet that as penetration of the eDNS service grows, NSI's
>prices will drop precipitously. Their $20M revenue stream might start to
I think it is naive to believe that "eDNS service" will magically begin
and end at 100 or 200 new TLDs, and all of corporate america will scramble
to register in the domains of the tow truck driver of their choice. It is
not going to happen. There will always be an "offical" name level --
"one-dimensional" as you put it. Virtually every domain holder in .com
will want a TLD if that is going to be the offical name level.
Setting up rogue TLDs would only seem to hasten the day when the bulk of
the official level name registration authority transfers from NSI to some
other single entity. Whether that is a worthwhile goal strikes me as a
far different debate than the one you are engaged in.
Stephen Schmidt
Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.COM) wrote:
: In article <52foog$8...@news.ais.net>,
: Stephen Schmidt <st...@eagle.ais.net> wrote:
: >Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.COM) wrote:
: >: In article <slrn54m3j...@enteract.com>,
: >: Thomas H. Ptacek <tq...@rdist.org> wrote:
: >: >26 Sep 1996 17:00:55 -0500 ka...@MCS.COM:
: >: >You explicitly stated that a failure of the IANA to permit you continued
: >: >access (and, it seems, sponsorship) for your admittedly "expirimental"
: >: >project would be grounds for litigation.
: >
: >: It very well might be, depending on the facts at the time. That's something
: >: that will be decided if and when the time comes. Until then I will not
: >: speculate over events which have not yet occurred.
: >
: >Brief question: What will you do when the folks who applied for the,
: >say, .BIZ TLD through the appropriate NIC/IANA structure turn out to have
: >a prior claim to the TLD through filing dates? Sue? Get sued? Have a
: >party?
: We have that claim due to the filing dates and prior use (10 years worth) on
: the Internet.
Interesting. Prior use of 10 years on the TLD .BIZ? How was that
accomplished?
: Learn the history, and you will understand.
I have a decent idea of the history. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me
as to where the "definitive" source for the history of this issue might
be? Or even a decent summary?
Thanks,
Karl Denninger
In article <52hhjn$3...@eve.enteract.com>,
Matt Hucke <hu...@enteract.com> wrote:
>In article <52hgbu$5...@access5.digex.net>,
>Bill Watts <po...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
>>You overlooked that, the moment the alternative TLD genie got out of the
>>bottle, Fnord Corporation demanded the right to run the .FNORD TLD, so
>>that its customers, suppliers, shareholders, managers and employees could
>>find and identify themselves appropriately.
>
>That would reduce DNS to a flat namespace, far more chaotic than
>anything we're seeing now. It's the inevitable result if AlterNIC is
>allowed to prevail.
On the contrary.
Nobody has suggested that there should not be a set of *Technical* criteria
to meet. In fact, my draft which I submitted to IANA (and which was
ignored, I note with interest) included said technical requirements.
There aren't 500,000 multi-homed sites in the world, and there never will be.
I do believe that an objective, technical set of criteria is a reasonable
thing to impose on iTLDs.
Of course, those who argue about "chaos" and "500,000 iTLDs owned by every
person in the universe" coming as a result of my positions didn't actually
bother to RESEARCH any of those positions, or the real point of view that
I've been talking about for over a *YEAR* now.
Then again, that's typical on the 'Net. Twist the words and positions of
people around until they fit some mold that allows you blast away, instead
of actually READING what is written.
Karl Denninger
In article <52i1mj$c...@eve.enteract.com>,
Nesta Stubbs <ne...@enteract.com> wrote:
>In article <52ht28$l...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>>
>>On the contrary.
>>
>>Nobody has suggested that there should not be a set of *Technical* criteria
>>to meet. In fact, my draft which I submitted to IANA (and which was
>>ignored, I note with interest) included said technical requirements.
>
The IETF archives, assuming its still around. I believe Eugene's site at
http://www.alternic.nic (for the eDNS enabled) or "www.alternic.net" (for
the eDNS impaired) also has a copy online.
>>There aren't 500,000 multi-homed sites in the world, and there never will be.
>
>Admitting that I havent read the specs you drafted, if the criteria is
>that a site doing service for a iTLD is only that it is multi-homed,
>what stops a multi-homed site from selling their capability of hosting
>iTLDs to bidders and flooding the namespace? Do your specs account
>for such activities?
The applicant has to have the infrastructure.
BTW, I just recently posted an analysis of the so-called "flooding" argument.
It is operationally PROVEN that even 30,000 TLDs will not cause operational
problems for the Internet infrastructure. We have enough data here and from
the root servers at this point to make that statement.
Karl Denninger
In article <52i34r$c...@eve.enteract.com>,
Matt Hucke <hu...@enteract.com> wrote:
>In article <52ht28$l...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>
>>Nobody has suggested that there should not be a set of *Technical* criteria
>>to meet. In fact, my draft which I submitted to IANA (and which was
>>ignored, I note with interest) included said technical requirements.
>
>>There aren't 500,000 multi-homed sites in the world, and there never will be.
>
>one. Or, someone like IBM or Microsoft could easily dedicate enough
>money to establish such a site.
>
>Only a fool with his head buried in the sand would think that a
>significant number of multi-billion dollar corporations would not seek
>to acquire a TLD.
So what?
If they're willing to:
1) Provide the resources to actually operate and serve the NS records
for registrants.
2) Run a *root nameserver* for the net at large (read: give something
back to the community generally) in exchange.
3) Publish a documented procedure, including dispute resolution and
an agreement for service with registrants where everyone can see
it.
Why not allow them to do so?
As I have said many times, we have enough data to *know conclusively* that
the Net will not collapse with even *30,000* TLDs. We know this because the
current roots run with *an order of magnitude more names online than
this* and the net has NOT collapsed under that load.
This is well over even the most pessimistic "hoard fearing" estimates from
the people who scream that we shouldn't be doing this.
Nesta Stubbs
>
>Nobody has suggested that there should not be a set of *Technical* criteria
>to meet. In fact, my draft which I submitted to IANA (and which was
>ignored, I note with interest) included said technical requirements.
Where could we get a copy of this draft?
>There aren't 500,000 multi-homed sites in the world, and there never will be.
Admitting that I havent read the specs you drafted, if the criteria is
that a site doing service for a iTLD is only that it is multi-homed,
what stops a multi-homed site from selling their capability of hosting
iTLDs to bidders and flooding the namespace? Do your specs account
for such activities?
--
Nesta Stubbs Cyberspace is dwelling
pumpkin in rhetoric. -jlwitwer
ne...@cynico.com t3lc0p1mp 3xtr0d1n4ir
Matt Hucke
>Nobody has suggested that there should not be a set of *Technical* criteria
>to meet. In fact, my draft which I submitted to IANA (and which was
>ignored, I note with interest) included said technical requirements.
If it was ignored by IANA, it's no longer relevant.
>There aren't 500,000 multi-homed sites in the world, and there never will be.
A multi-homed site could sell a TLD to any large company that wanted
one. Or, someone like IBM or Microsoft could easily dedicate enough
money to establish such a site.
Only a fool with his head buried in the sand would think that a
significant number of multi-billion dollar corporations would not seek
to acquire a TLD.
>Then again, that's typical on the 'Net. Twist the words and positions of
>people around until they fit some mold that allows you blast away, instead
>of actually READING what is written.
Spare us your pompous blather. I've read what you've written here,
and that's enough to demonstrate that you lack any desire to proceed
in a reasonable matter. Instead, all you've been saying is "these are
MINE MINE MINE".
Joe Adams
In article <52ht28$l...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) wrote:
:In article <52hhjn$3...@eve.enteract.com>,
:Matt Hucke <hu...@enteract.com> wrote:
:>In article <52hgbu$5...@access5.digex.net>,
:>Bill Watts <po...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
:>>You overlooked that, the moment the alternative TLD genie got out of the
:>>bottle, Fnord Corporation demanded the right to run the .FNORD TLD, so
:>>that its customers, suppliers, shareholders, managers and employees could
:>>find and identify themselves appropriately.
:>
:>That would reduce DNS to a flat namespace, far more chaotic than
:>anything we're seeing now. It's the inevitable result if AlterNIC is
:>allowed to prevail.
<blather snip>
:Of course, those who argue about "chaos" and "500,000 iTLDs owned by every
:person in the universe" coming as a result of my positions didn't actually
:bother to RESEARCH any of those positions, or the real point of view that
:I've been talking about for over a *YEAR* now.
:
:Then again, that's typical on the 'Net.
Sir, you are far from an expert on what is "typical"
:Twist the words and positions of people around until they fit some mold
that allows :you blast away, instead of actually READING what is written.
Your right about karl. You have just summed up in 2 lines your behavior on
this issue.
That sentence of yours accurately describes how you have reacted to Thomas
Ptacek, who has been the very accurate voice of reason and common sense
in this thread.
Nuff said! :)
Joe Adams
In article <52h17m$a...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) wrote:
:In article <slrn54mlt...@enteract.com>,
:Thomas H. Ptacek <tq...@rdist.org> wrote:
:>26 Sep 1996 22:39:16 -0500 ka...@MCS.COM:
:>>Nor is there consensus on the IANA plans!
:>
:>Let me amend my previous statement.
:>
:>When there SEEMS to be a consensus among those I speak to on the net that
:>your plan is a good idea, and when a significant fraction of all
:>nameservers carry your root cache file, I will take you more seriously.
<snip>
:>Same deal. It seems to me like you're trying to get ahead of the game and
:>grab a TLD before anyone else has a chance to get it.
:
:On the contrary. Nobody else is prevented to getting in line and doing
:exactly what we've done -- setting up OPERATIONAL registry services and
:having them available to people.
C'mon karl, something that can reach less than 1% of the net is far from
functionally operational in real world terms. 4 registery's out of
millions?? I don't buy it.
Thats like having a car that can only run on less than 1% of the roads.
:If you do that, and make the effort, I do believe that creates a
prior-use claim.
:So do our attorneys, the Alternic's attorneys, and lots of attorneys, by
the way.
Your modus operandi now is transparent. ;)
<snip>
:>You neglected to address my point. Again, as I said before, if you're so
:>far in the right, your argument will stand up on it's own merit, and won't
:>require veiled (and unveiled) threats of customer reaction to gain
:>support.
:
:Sorry, Tom, but content and customer desire drives the net. You can preach
:from the rafters, but its irrelavent. If the content is there, then the
:IANA loses immediately.
Mr. Denninger there is No customer desire for what your particular pitch.
4 registries compared to millions is miniscule content.
I have seen NO calls for your particular alt domain in chi.internet from
any Chicago
area ISP except for your loud pitches alone. The thing is, their not
buying your pitch.
According to Randy Smiths latest information, there is over 100 Chicago
area ISP's.
Where is the customer desire? Very simply, because *The Desire Does Not Exist*
<snip>
:>You're missing my point. As far as I can tell, you claimed .BIZ before
:>anyone else on the net even knew it was possible to do so; you were able
:>to do this because, when you claimed .BIZ, it WASN'T possible to do so.
:
:On the contrary. I claimed .BIZ because we have 10+ years of prior use on
:the Internet of this namespace. You were in GRADE SCHOOL when the "biz"
:newsgroups were first initiated on the Internet.
Mr. Denninger that was a *Cheap Shot*. It's irrelevant to Mr Ptacek
because he has been very accurate, informative and has a lot of common
sense on this issue.
I say this with having no association whatsoever with him or Enteract.
<snip>
:>do not see what gives you, rather than any other person on the net with a
:>nameserver, the right to claim an entire top level domain.
:
:10 years of prior use and organization?
One would have to look at the record of your customer satisfaction rate first.
If it has been 10 years, then that is 10 very controversial years.
The Internet TLD's should Not be subject to that type of combative controversy.
:>Furthermore, I am totally in agreement with those expressing concerns that
:>what you're doing is going to lead to total chaos when more than one
:>person lays claim to a single TLD. I see no process and no agreement among
:>people on the net as to how TLDs are claimed and operating.
:
:First come, first-served is the only way you'll resolve this. If someone
:disagrees with the first-use priority, then if they think its worth a lawsuit
:that's the appropriate venue to work through.
:
:Challenging someone's claim to a TLD should be *extremely* difficult. I see
:no problem with requiring it to go through legal process -- in fact, that's
:the only *fair and impartial* process we have in this country (pistols at 20
:paces went out of style a couple of hundred years ago).
I see. I take it that you are threatening a lawsuit if you don't get your
particular way.
Mr Denninger don't you know that by the very use of your particular
tactics, you may be very much hurting your administrative and legal claim
to control of .BIZ ?
Your claim/pitch for a .BIZ monopoly may not fit the eventual appropiate
administrative and technical structure of more TLD's.
Your idea is only one way and it should not be forced upon people.
:>I'm also sympathetic to those who are afraid that unrestrained TLD
:>expansion is going to turn the top level domain namespace into a morass,
:>make things harder to navigate, and overly complicate things.
:
:See the real studies. People don't guess names by and large. The net needs
:a "white and yellow pages" service anyway -- that's orthogonal to this
:discussion.
Put up those "real studies". I don't buy it and most don't either.
:>You made a statement claiming that we were "firewalling" "eTLD" DNS
:>queries. This gave at least one person the impression that we had *set up
:>packet filters* preventing DNS queries to your nameservers. I'm sure this
:>is not what you meant, but every time I've asked whether that's the case,
:>you've responded with an assertion that indirectly confirms your previous
:>statement.
:
:No, I've said that your *standard, provided configuration to customers*
:ignores the eTLD domains, and your *NAMESERVERS* refuse to forward queries
:for those names to others. That means that your NAMESERVERS effectively ARE
:firewalling the traffic -- you have *deliberately* configured your hardware
:(as have many others) to refuse to forward these queries.
:
:Firewalls don't have to be placed in a router, as I'm sure you're aware.
C'mon karl... your really twisting this one.
They are ignoring nothing. There simply is No Demand/Desire for that access.
:>>Will you tell your customers, in your signup information and through your
:>>technical desk, about this *proactively*? On your web pages? In your
:>>customer information packet?
:>
:>We will gladly explain to any customer that asks us about it how to
:>resolve eTLD names. I think it's probably your responsibility at this
:>point (you being the one trying to convince US that your project, which
:>takes a sizeable, choice chunk out of the top level domain namespace, is
:>worthwhile) to convince everyone, our customers included, that what you're
:>doing is worthwhile.
Excellent Customer Service Mr Ptacek and a solid common sense approach.
<snip>
:>NOBODY has asked how to resolve a .BIZ or .XXX site. I don't know that
:>anyone here cares. Yet.
:
:Of course, you haven't exactly informed them there were these choices out
:there either, have you?
:
:>I personally think what you're doing is irresponsible, unfair, and
:>unethical. Perhaps I don't know enough about the situation to make those
:>comments, but what I DO know right now is not enough to convince me to
:>support your registries.
:
:You don't know *anything* about the history or this situation, as you have
:amply demonstrated.
It sure appears that Mr. Ptacek knows much about this and the real world
implications of your particular trial experiment Mr. Denninger.
:>Would you like us to put a web page up to take a poll of how many of our
:>users support your plan?
:
:With your one-sided, biased evaluation as its only content?
C'mon karl, Enteract did not get to be the top rated ISP in the Chicago area by
acting like that and they would not do anything like that. Please wisen up.
They have a reputation of being fair and treating their customers with respect.
Maybe that concept of excellent customer service is unfamiliar to you.
Jude Crouch
: : >: >You explicitly stated that a failure of the IANA to permit you continued
: : >: >access (and, it seems, sponsorship) for your admittedly "expirimental"
: : >: >project would be grounds for litigation.
: : >
: : >: It very well might be, depending on the facts at the time. That's something
: : >: that will be decided if and when the time comes. Until then I will not
: : >: speculate over events which have not yet occurred.
: : >
: : >Brief question: What will you do when the folks who applied for the,
: : >say, .BIZ TLD through the appropriate NIC/IANA structure turn out to have
: : >a prior claim to the TLD through filing dates? Sue? Get sued? Have a
: : >party?
: : We have that claim due to the filing dates and prior use (10 years worth) on
: : the Internet.
: : Learn the history, and you will understand.
: Is there case law on this? Can you point me in the right direction?
: Is it copyright, trademark, patent, or what?
: Jude
Karl, I missed your response on this. Can't seem to find it on your
server. Could you repeat it?
Bob Old
Nesta Stubbs wrote:
>
> In article <52ht28$l...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Nobody has suggested that there should not be a set of *Technical* criteria
> >to meet. In fact, my draft which I submitted to IANA (and which was
> >ignored, I note with interest) included said technical requirements.
>
>
> --
> Nesta Stubbs Cyberspace is dwelling
> pumpkin in rhetoric. -jlwitwer
> ne...@cynico.com t3lc0p1mp 3xtr0d1n4ir
I just looked it up. The draft may be found at:
ftp://ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-denninger-itld-admin-00.txt
It has expired, but was cited by a more recent, related draft:
INTERNET DRAFT D. Collier-Brown
Expires March 1997 Sept 1996
On Experimental Top Level Domains
Rev 0
draft-collier-brown-itld-exper-00.txt
located at:
ftp://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-collier-brown-itld-exper-00.txt
The web page I use to find Internet Drafts is:
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
Enjoy,
B.O. Sept. 28, 1996
Bob Old
Lindenhurst, IL
U.S.A.
Klaus Steinberger
In article <52hkbp$2...@access5.digex.net>, po...@access5.digex.net (Bill Watts) writes:
|> In article <52eha6$a...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
|> List of 4 goals:
|> >3) Partially solve the trademark problems by making the iTLD namespace
|>
|> Somewhat delusionary, because there is no way that the number of TLDs can
|> be restrained once that level is available. And to borrow an example,
|> there is only one .UNITED TLD, and the same issue will arise as to whether
|> it goes to United Airlines or United VanLines.
|>
|>
|> >4) Insure that no single entity (including the IANA) is able to impose
|> > monopoly conditions, including fees and taxes, on the DNS (or IP for
|> > that matter) namespace, which we argue belongs to the people -- not
|> > four (or is it three, or two?) guys out at USC in California.
|> >
|>
|> What do these words mean? You say namespace "belongs to the people" and
|> it must be "insured" that no "single entity" controls it. Somebody has to
|> assign TLDs. "The people" will want their own TLDs just as they want
|> their own .com domains today. Who is going to "insure" that the somebody
|> that assigns TLDs doesn't impose "conditions?" Only a sovereign authority
|> backed by police powers and a binding justice system can "insure" the
|> "peoples" rights.
|>
|> I don't think you mean to call for the creation of an Internet Bureau at
|> the FCC. Yet, whoever is assigning TLDs will have exactly the unchecked
|> market power that InterNIC has today.
One more point to this two questions. You all are viewing it from an American
only standpoint. It's really not a good idea to open up TLD completly in an
international Network. There should be of course some international Domains,
like .COM and .ORG and so are yet. But there will be really bad trouble
including diplomatic issues if TLD's are completly opened up, and the controling
instance is US only. If TLD's should be open up to some distinct, the
control should be at some international organisation like ISO.
Sincerly,
Klaus
--
Klaus Steinberger Beschleunigerlabor der TU und LMU Muenchen
Phone: (+49 89)289 14287 Hochschulgelaende, D-85748 Garching, Germany
FAX: (+49 89)289 14280 EMail: Klaus.St...@Physik.Uni-Muenchen.DE
URL: http://www.bl.physik.tu-muenchen.de/~k2/k2.html
Mike Scher
Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.COM) wrote:
: As I have said many times, we have enough data to *know conclusively* that
: the Net will not collapse with even *30,000* TLDs. We know this because the
: current roots run with *an order of magnitude more names online than
: this* and the net has NOT collapsed under that load.
Perhaps it will not, but it leaves us with -precisely- the same treademark
and name-ownership problems we have today. Instead of fighting over
blah.com, we will see fights over .blah, and insttead of InterNIC, we will
see some other entity (of whatever form) having to decide whether to
freeze the use of Blah Electronics' .blah or not on applilcation from the
Blah Company. That will be the case whether Blah Electronics is
multihomed and serves its own namespace at the top level, or it is not,
and pays IBM to do it for them.
It'll still be the a land grab for name space, with a bunch of multi-homed
corporations taking the place of the various providers that have
second-tier domains. Those new TLD's will be in the same predicament as
the current second-tier domains, and the authority to assign TLD's will be
in the same predicament as out present NIC.
-Mike
--
Michael Brian Scher (MS683/MS3213)| Anthropologist, Attorney, Part-Time Guru
Netural Systems Administration | (312)442-2250 [vox] & (312)442-2248 [fax]
str...@netural.com str...@cultural.com str...@tezcat.com
I'm a legal anthropologist; what's an illegal anthropologist?
Jude Crouch
Mike Scher (str...@netural.com) wrote:
: Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.COM) wrote:
: : As I have said many times, we have enough data to *know conclusively* that
: : the Net will not collapse with even *30,000* TLDs. We know this because the
: : current roots run with *an order of magnitude more names online than
: : this* and the net has NOT collapsed under that load.
: Perhaps it will not, but it leaves us with -precisely- the same treademark
: and name-ownership problems we have today. Instead of fighting over
: blah.com, we will see fights over .blah, and insttead of InterNIC, we will
: see some other entity (of whatever form) having to decide whether to
: freeze the use of Blah Electronics' .blah or not on applilcation from the
: Blah Company. That will be the case whether Blah Electronics is
: multihomed and serves its own namespace at the top level, or it is not,
: and pays IBM to do it for them.
: It'll still be the a land grab for name space, with a bunch of multi-homed
: corporations taking the place of the various providers that have
: second-tier domains. Those new TLD's will be in the same predicament as
: the current second-tier domains, and the authority to assign TLD's will be
: in the same predicament as out present NIC.
: -Mike
Yes. I can't wait for .jude and .mike . I think I'll start a newsgroup
category with jude.* just so I can reserve it.
Thomas H. Ptacek
27 Sep 1996 12:00:38 -0500 ka...@MCS.COM:
>On the contrary. Nobody else is prevented to getting in line and doing
>exactly what we've done -- setting up OPERATIONAL registry services and
>having them available to people.
Oh? So you won't attempt to sue us if our organization sets up a .BIZ top
level domain as well?
Just making a point. It seems to me that a very small set up people
decided when the race to claim top level domain namespace started, and
staked claims before the rest of the network was fully aware that such
claims could be staked.
>If you do that, and make the effort, I do believe that creates a prior-use
>claim. So do our attorneys, the Alternic's attorneys, and lots of attorneys,
>by the way.
I have never, ever suggested that there was any legal grounds to contest
your usage of the .BIZ top level domain. Regardless of my opinion of the
legitimacy of your claim to a top level domain, I am not a lawyer, I've
never suggested that I am a lawyer, and am wary of providing foundless
legal advice to people.
You've my apologies if I've made that all unclear.
>the NIC decided to get into the business of being a court. The folly of
>that path has, I believe, been adequately demonstrated by now with all the
>lawsuits against them that have been filed.
You believe fewer lawsuits will be filed with your scheme? I'm genuinely
curious as to why you believe this to be the case, and I would appreciate
it if you'd explain to me (and the rest of this thread) your thoughts as
to how opening the top level domain namespace will solve legal problems.
>Sorry, Tom, but content and customer desire drives the net. You can preach
>from the rafters, but its irrelavent. If the content is there, then the
>IANA loses immediately.
>The content is being developed, and some is already online. The game's
>afoot, and the IANA is pissed as all hell because they *know* that once
>these TLDs gain use and interesting content, there is absolutely zero they
>can do about the situation.
This is exactly what I told you in a previous message. We're totally in
agreement on this. If you can gather up enough registrants to make .BIZ a
popular top level domain, this entire argument will become moot.
>Again, if you've been following the debate you'd know all of this by now.
I've actually been following this debate for quite awhile, and while I
don't claim to know everything about the situation (which is why I call my
comments "opinions" and not "simple fact"), I do understand the concept
behind the IANA.
I'm just telling you that to save you the time you might have otherwise
taken to explain the situation to me. I hope this makes it easier to
answer my questions.
>>You don't know me well enough to say what is and is not typical of me.
>I know what I see here and in your other communications with me.
Heh. And I know what I see of you and your communications, but don't try
to characterize you at all. I don't know you well enough. I'd be pleased
if you'd extend the same courtesy to me. Thank you.
>>anyone else on the net even knew it was possible to do so; you were able
>>to do this because, when you claimed .BIZ, it WASN'T possible to do so.
>On the contrary. I claimed .BIZ because we have 10+ years of prior use on
>the Internet of this namespace. You were in GRADE SCHOOL when the "biz"
>newsgroups were first initiated on the Internet. I was the person who
>initiated those groups.
Mr. Denninger, I am sorry, but I do not understand how initiating a
newsgroup heirarchy gives you claim to a top level domain.
>Please learn the history before you make commentary without basis.
My apologies. I'm obviously lacking information that you've got. Perhaps
you could help further this discussion by providing us with a pointer to
that history.
I was (of course) aware of you and biz.*; however, nothing I've ever read
on the net indicates to me that the creation of a Usenet newsgroup
heirarchy entitles the creator to the identically named top level domain.
If there's some document that explains this concept, I'm sorry. Please
point it out to me, so that I could read it and provide better-informed
commentary to people who ask me about it. Thank you.
>10 years of prior use and organization?
Mr. Denninger, I am aware enough to state with confidence that you do
*not* have 10 years of prior use and organization of an Internet-wide DNS
top level domain.
I do not, for a second, contest whatever claim you're laying to the Usenet
biz.* heirarchy. Thank you, on behalf of my organization (as I'm certain
Mike, Tracy, and Team EnterAct agree with me on this) for taking the time
to deal with biz.*. Many of us have been in news admin shoes before, and
fully understand the amount of work and dedication the task must have
required of you.
I have complete respect for your ability and judgement; however,
regardless of that, I still question your claim to the .BIZ top level
domain. If my questions appear less than respectful, I apologize; indicate
to me what it is I'm saying that's troubling you, and I'll tread more
lightly.
>First come, first-served is the only way you'll resolve this. If someone
>disagrees with the first-use priority, then if they think its worth a lawsuit
>that's the appropriate venue to work through.
Mr. Denninger, pardon me if my ill-informed non-wordly idealistic views
are shining through in this comment, but I'm totally opposed to the idea
that all issues on the net should be worked out in a court of law.
>no problem with requiring it to go through legal process -- in fact, that's
>the only *fair and impartial* process we have in this country (pistols at 20
>paces went out of style a couple of hundred years ago).
Pardon me for asking you this, but you think that "pistols at 20 paces" is
a fair and impartial process?
I'm sure you didn't intend to imply this.
>See the real studies. People don't guess names by and large. The net needs
>a "white and yellow pages" service anyway -- that's orthogonal to this
>discussion.
Mr. Denninger, you appear to be asserting that "DNS names are
meaningless". I respectfully disagree. The Internet is not yet the only
medium of communication this world has, and some people still do invest in
physical, paper-based products that bear information on how to contact
them on the Internet. Right now, the only way to do that effectively
requires the informing party to include their DNS name with the
information they're providing.
Beyond that, the top level domain you're claiming is not a meaningless
name. I'm reasonably sure you took the name because it was both memorable
and meaningful to business organizations. I'm curious as to why, if you're
simply trying to make a point about the poor administration of domain
namespace, you chose to take such a desirable name.
You and Mr. Kashpureff would probably have won many, many people over if
you took totally meaningless names which would be unwanted even in freely
available TLD namespace; it would have convinced many who are currently
questioning your motives in this issue that you had more issues than your
own well-being at heart when you decided to be a standard bearer in the
war against NSI.
Perhaps you could temporarily suspend registration in .BIZ pending some
form of general agreement about how TLD issues are to be handled, and
instead take .40h as a freely available top level domain, as a symbolic
gesture, offering access to the domain to all those interested in carrying
the argument for opening top level domain space further.
You'd then have a concrete method of demonstrating, to people opposed to
freely available, commercial access to top level domain namespace, the
amount of support your argument carries.
EnterAct would happily register in .40h, facilitate customer access to the
domain as best we can, and do everything we can to educate our customers
about the issue, if you'd be kind enough to provide that method of showing
our support for your arguments against the status quo, which we are as
well opposed to.
Unfortunately, the way you're currently handling the issue makes it
impossible for our organization to support you without implicitly
supporting your claim to .BIZ, which, at the current time, we are totally
unable to do. We regret that people have decided to add business/financial
issues into a totally unreasolved issue on the Internet. It's my opinion
that this issue could have been resolved with much, much less bad blood
and much, much more general, peaceful, constructive discussion and
cooperation if organizations had *not* decided to commence offering
commercial TLD registration services until the issue was totally resolved.
>>queries. This gave at least one person the impression that we had *set up
>>packet filters* preventing DNS queries to your nameservers. I'm sure this
>No, I've said that your *standard, provided configuration to customers*
>ignores the eTLD domains, and your *NAMESERVERS* refuse to forward queries
>for those names to others. That means that your NAMESERVERS effectively ARE
Mr. Denninger, you've again failed to recognize the request I'd asked of
you. It saddens me to see that we can't resolve such a simple issue.
I made no statement whatsoever about the behavior of our nameservers, nor
did I ask you to justify the assertion that our nameservers are currently
not configured to resolve "eTLD" names. You are, of course, correct, and
we don't for a second deny this. EnterAct's DNS servers will not resolve
"eTLD" domains until the issue is either resolved with the Internet as a
whole, or customer demand for "eTLD" domains *requires* us to add support
for your project, rather than providing customers with alternate methods
of resolving these names.
As I said before, I was simply asking you to confirm the fact that none of
our connectivity hardware restricts DNS packets destined to or from your
nameservers. I asked this of you because you made an assertion that led at
least one person to believe this was the case, and did not wan't such a
serious issue left open.
Unfortunately, you've decided not to address this issue, which I find
troubling, since the assertion which you uintentionally made potentially
has a huge effect on the way the public views the way we do business.
I'll of course assume that you're not doing this intentionally, and that
you've simply misunderstood my requests. I'm sorry if I've clouded the
real issues by injecting a concern for my organization's public appearance
in this argument, and I won't ask you to continue pursuing it. Thank you
for the time you gave to it.
>firewalling the traffic -- you have *deliberately* configured your hardware
>(as have many others) to refuse to forward these queries.
This is absolutely untrue. My organization has never *deliberately*
prevented anyone from resolving "eTLD" names, nor have we *ever*
"deliberately configured" our DNS to "refuse to forward these queries".
We, along with the overwhelming majority of the Internet, simply did not
proactively support your project by deliberately configuring our DNS to
forward "eTLD" name requests to your root servers. There was nothing
deliberate about it; it would have taken an action on our part, and one
that was not a normal aspect of our DNS maintenance, to support your
project.
I believe you're simply mistaken in the way you're wording this. Perhaps
you didn't have enough time to phrase this statement correctly. I'm sure
you're a respectable, honest person, and thus will assume this was the
case, and that you weren't attempting to slander me or my organization by
claiming that we are, in any way, shape, or form, going out of our way to
prevent our customers access to your nameservers.
>Firewalls don't have to be placed in a router, as I'm sure you're aware.
"Firewall" is a very specific term, and one which has a definition you are
totally aware of. We are not "firewalling" any aspect of DNS from our
customers. Again, I believe the issues we're having here are due to
semantic misunderstandings, and thus will pursue the issue no further.
[ edited for clarity; the following excerpts actually appeared in reverse
order in Mr. Denninger's post ]
>The reason you don't get the calls is that most people on the net *DON'T
>EVEN KNOW ABOUT THIS*!
>So you don't mind me sending a mass-email to your customer base to inform
>them? Or will you list a pointer to our web page (or the Alternic's for
Yes. Our customers have not solicited any email from you, and I
confidently speak for the majority of the customer base that my services
support when I say that unsolicited email from you (or anyone else) is not
welcome.
Your sense of judgement is far, far to respectable for me to believe for a
second that you would do something like this; you've consistantly spoken
against (and supported) unsolicited mass-email, and my organization
respects and appreciates that effort. It would shock many people at
EnterAct if you actually did something like this.
You are, as you've stated elsewhere, a man of many ideas. You'd serve your
purpose well if you'd use your creativity and intellect to come up with a
novel, convincing way to convince my customers that what you're doing is a
good, valuable, or needed modification to the way things are already done
on the net.
I have complete faith in your ability to accomplish this, and am totally
ready to fire up a different root cache when you do. I look forward to
seeing how you do it.
>>If you're adding all the content you claim to be adding, that probably
>>won't be difficult, and there's no issue.
>You've got that right. "www.orgies.xxx" comes to mind.
Well, that's good news. Surely, this argument will come to a quick,
painless end when all my customers demand access to these top level
domains. Until then, I respectfully point out that you've no need to cast
doubt on our level of service to make your point; simply adding the
content you claim to be lining up will do nicely.
>Of course, you haven't exactly informed them there were these choices out
>there either, have you?
You are correct.
>>I personally think what you're doing is irresponsible, unfair, and
>>unethical. Perhaps I don't know enough about the situation to make those
>>comments, but what I DO know right now is not enough to convince me to
>>support your registries.
>You don't know *anything* about the history or this situation, as you have
>amply demonstrated.
I offer you my sincere apologies; I questioned your honesty and ethics
without adequate basis, which was totally uncalled for. 18 hour work days
have a tendancy to cloud my judgement, and I will do my best to avoid
posting public commentary when I'm impaired from doing so accurately.
>>Would you like us to put a web page up to take a poll of how many of our
>>users support your plan?
>With your one-sided, biased evaluation as its only content? Or are you
>willing to allow me to write an *unedited* page with exactly the same
>exposure as your opinion to be included in that page?
Certainly! If you'd agree to type something up that we could present to
our customers on a web page, I'll gladly include it, without editing or
commentary. I'll also solicit an appropriate summary of the argument
against you, from someone qualified to speak on the matter, and give both
viewpoints equal access. And, of course, if I obtain commentary from
someone more qualified than myself, I'll refrain from interjecting my
personal opinion at all.
The "vote" (and 'vote' is exactly what it will be, because as soon as the
majority of my customers support you, we will load your root cache file!)
will have a prominent place on our front web page. We will point our
customers to it in our newsgroups, as well, and will look into offering
incentive to our users to take the time to commit their opinions to the
issue.
I think this is an excellent, constructive idea, and I'm grateful that
you offered it to us. Thank you.
----------------
Thomas Ptacek at EnterAct, L.L.C., Chicago, IL [tq...@enteract.com]
----------------
exit(main(kfp->kargc, argv, environ));
Bill Watts
In article <slrn54s7b...@enteract.com>,
>>the Internet of this namespace. You were in GRADE SCHOOL when the "biz"
>>newsgroups were first initiated on the Internet. I was the person who
>>initiated those groups.
>
>Mr. Denninger, I am sorry, but I do not understand how initiating a
>newsgroup heirarchy gives you claim to a top level domain.
Me neither. For relevant prior use, consider BIZ.net and BIZ.com, both of
which appear to have been registered prior to any squatter claim on .BIZ
TLD. And at least one and maybe both of these domain holders appears to
be actively using "BIZ" as a mark in interstate commerce, perhaps
establishing, at a minimum, common law trademark rights to selling
internet services using "BIZ" on the internet.
The gestation of newsgroups does not constitute doing business using "BIZ"
as a mark. Any prior use claim based on involvement in newsgroups is
bogus.
Accordingly, the facts may arise that use of BIZ as a TLD would be subject
to court ordered termination, and would have to be given to a true
trademark holder of that name.
Matthias Urlichs
In comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains, article <52h0fj$a...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>,
ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
> We have that claim due to the filing dates and prior use (10 years worth) on
> the Internet.
>
> Learn the history, and you will understand.
>
Since _when_ is a Usenet newsgroup the same thing as a top-level domain?
Your argument doesn't hold. Names are bound to their domains. Prior-use of
the name "ACME" by e.g. a furniture maker cannot and will not let any
woodcrafter, no matter how skilled, to prevent me from successfully
operating "ACME Internet Services" in the same town.
--
Job Placement, n.:
Telling your boss what he can do with your job.
--
Matthias Urlichs \ noris network GmbH / Xlink-POP Nürnberg
Schleiermacherstraße 12 \ Linux+Internet / EMail: url...@noris.de
90491 Nürnberg (Germany) \ Consulting+Programming+Networking+etc'ing
PGP: 1024/4F578875 1B 89 E2 1C 43 EA 80 44 15 D2 29 CF C6 C7 E0 DE
Click <A HREF="http://info.noris.de/~smurf/finger">here</A>. 42
Karl Denninger
>>claim. So do our attorneys, the Alternic's attorneys, and lots of attorneys,
>>by the way.
>
>I have never, ever suggested that there was any legal grounds to contest
>your usage of the .BIZ top level domain.
Thank you.
>>the NIC decided to get into the business of being a court. The folly of
>>that path has, I believe, been adequately demonstrated by now with all the
>>lawsuits against them that have been filed.
>
>You believe fewer lawsuits will be filed with your scheme? I'm genuinely
>curious as to why you believe this to be the case, and I would appreciate
>it if you'd explain to me (and the rest of this thread) your thoughts as
>to how opening the top level domain namespace will solve legal problems.
Yes, I do.
If a domain registrar acts as a distributor of information published by
registrants, they stand an excellent chance of being lawsuit-proof.
There is roughly 100 years of case law on this. Why do you think that
Donnelly publishing doesn't get sued when someone infringes a trademark in
the Yellow Pages?
Because they don't try to second-guess the legitimacy of the claim.
If you open the TLD namespace, you instantly create a reason for people to
register in *appropriate* TLDs.
You'll end up with ".MOVIE", ".CAR", ".GAS" (Shell, Amoco, etc), etc.
Trademarks are line of business specific, geography-specific, and name
specific. Three dimensional things. Trademarks are protectable NOT due to
the name per-se, but because an infringer is doing one of the following:
1) Trading on your corporate image.
2) Diluting or disparging your corporate image/name.
3) *Confusing consumers* as to the origin of products or services.
The person claiming the infringement has to *PROVE* one of these to prevail
in a trademark lawsuit.
Now, if you force all the registrants in ONE TLD (.COM), you effectively
make the confusion argument for the person wanting to sue! Why? Because
you've tried to collapse a three-dimensional namespace to one dimension!
>>On the contrary. I claimed .BIZ because we have 10+ years of prior use on
>>the Internet of this namespace. You were in GRADE SCHOOL when the "biz"
>>newsgroups were first initiated on the Internet. I was the person who
>>initiated those groups.
>
>Mr. Denninger, I am sorry, but I do not understand how initiating a
>newsgroup heirarchy gives you claim to a top level domain.
Locality of use (the Internet and Usenet). Consult an attorney :-)
>>First come, first-served is the only way you'll resolve this. If someone
>>disagrees with the first-use priority, then if they think its worth a lawsuit
>>that's the appropriate venue to work through.
>
>Mr. Denninger, pardon me if my ill-informed non-wordly idealistic views
>are shining through in this comment, but I'm totally opposed to the idea
>that all issues on the net should be worked out in a court of law.
Then you set yourself up to become the defendant in lawsuits yourself.
The fact of the matter is that business issues have a resolution process
which no ivory-tower academic discussion, or net.head idiot savants can
change. NSI has discovered this in a relatively short time.
NOBODY on the net is qualified to sit as a tribunal. No one. And those who
attempt to do so are just asking to end up in a courtroom on the wrong end
of a lawsuit, because when you try to usurp the place of the legal system it
tends to come down and stomp on 'yer head.
That is WHY we have courts, and WHY disputes are taken to them. Our legal
system says that the proper place to take these disputes is a court, with
all kinds of procedural and due-process protections. This is a fact, and no
amount of net.whining changes it.
ANY party -- ANY -- that attempts to bypass this due process with their own
idea of what's "right" is asking to be judged *themselves*.
You do not give up your right to your day in court by logging into an ISP
or setting up a provider of services through this media.
>Right now, the only way to do that effectively
>requires the informing party to include their DNS name with the
>information they're providing.
You just made my point for me. People don't, by and large, "guess" at the
DNS names they're looking for. They get them from some other source.
>Unfortunately, the way you're currently handling the issue makes it
>impossible for our organization to support you without implicitly
>supporting your claim to .BIZ, which, at the current time, we are totally
>unable to do.
Why? Because you believe that there is something wrong with us using BIZ,
or is this a personal issue?
>and much, much more general, peaceful, constructive discussion and
>cooperation if organizations had *not* decided to commence offering
>commercial TLD registration services until the issue was totally resolved.
There has been no indication that the issue will be totally resolved.
Further, there is no indiciation that the IANA is working within the
process, nor that they are enforcing the EXISTING guidelines and rules.
Specifically, there are RFCs out there that allow creation of new TLDs
*right now*, but the IANA refuses to listen to them.
They also have NSI running the commercial TLDs on the root servers! If they
control the root servers, then why are they doing this? It is clearly NOT
in the best interest of the net to permit this to happen -- but it is, and
has been.
>As I said before, I was simply asking you to confirm the fact that none of
>our connectivity hardware restricts DNS packets destined to or from your
>nameservers.
Your DNS servers are restricting that access. Which piece of your hardware
is configured in such a fashion isn't really the point, is it?
>>firewalling the traffic -- you have *deliberately* configured your hardware
>>(as have many others) to refuse to forward these queries.
>
>This is absolutely untrue. My organization has never *deliberately*
>prevented anyone from resolving "eTLD" names, nor have we *ever*
>"deliberately configured" our DNS to "refuse to forward these queries".
False. You have decided as an organization to load one set of root files
over another. This was a CHOICE, and it continues to be a configuration
CHOICE.
That's the bottom line.
>I have complete faith in your ability to accomplish this, and am totally
>ready to fire up a different root cache when you do. I look forward to
>seeing how you do it.
You have just confirmed that you have made a deliberate *CHOICE* not to
support the eTLD namespace. Thank you Tom.
>>Of course, you haven't exactly informed them there were these choices out
>>there either, have you?
>
>You are correct.
Why not?
>The "vote" (and 'vote' is exactly what it will be, because as soon as the
>majority of my customers support you, we will load your root cache file!)
>will have a prominent place on our front web page. We will point our
>customers to it in our newsgroups, as well, and will look into offering
>incentive to our users to take the time to commit their opinions to the
>issue.
>
>I think this is an excellent, constructive idea, and I'm grateful that
>you offered it to us. Thank you.
--
Michael Cloran
>It'll still be the a land grab for name space, with a bunch of multi-homed
>corporations taking the place of the various providers that have
>second-tier domains. Those new TLD's will be in the same predicament as
>the current second-tier domains, and the authority to assign TLD's will be
>in the same predicament as out present NIC.
IMHO it would be much worse than the present situation. Can you
imagine the life of a poor DNS administrator:
Get up, log into Lexis/Nexis, see which court cases have been
resolved, update the root cache file, deal with the complaints from
users about certain sites not being reachable.
I guess someone could start a service to read the court case results
for you and send out updates for your root cache file.... Oh but
wait, then *they'd* be sued....
Yep, I gues the courts are the proper places to be deciding 30,000 TLD
disputes.
--
Michael Cloran FAX: 312-325-9664
EnterAct, L.L.C. WEB: http://www.enteract.com
PHONE: 312-248-8511 E-MAIL: mic...@enteract.com
Chicagoland 'net access. Check us out! -->in...@enteract.com
Karl Denninger
In article <324edd76....@news.enteract.com>,
Michael Cloran <mic...@enteract.com> wrote:
>
>>It'll still be the a land grab for name space, with a bunch of multi-homed
>>corporations taking the place of the various providers that have
>>second-tier domains. Those new TLD's will be in the same predicament as
>>the current second-tier domains, and the authority to assign TLD's will be
>>in the same predicament as out present NIC.
>
>IMHO it would be much worse than the present situation. Can you
>imagine the life of a poor DNS administrator:
>
>Get up, log into Lexis/Nexis, see which court cases have been
>resolved, update the root cache file, deal with the complaints from
>users about certain sites not being reachable.
>
>I guess someone could start a service to read the court case results
>for you and send out updates for your root cache file.... Oh but
>wait, then *they'd* be sued....
Yet *another* person who doesn't understand how DNS works. And you work for
Enteract?
Only the root servers and their operators need to be concerned about these
things. Since reality is that only a limited number of these may exist
(again, if you don't understand why, please LEARN before you flame) the
problem is a bounded one and easily handled.
Craig Nordin
Karl doesn't mind being first, and it can have its rewards.
He was the first to make a strong defense of CIX when everyone
was griping that they would be shut-out.
He was the first to turn on CIX when he saw that the politics
were going past democracy.
He was the first to create a Nationwide network that would work
in contravention to CIX restrictions.
And it looks like he will at least be one of the first in this
case.
Being first counts alot in law. If he registers abc.zip then
the courts are likely to find that the Karl Denninger registered
owner of abc.zip *should* own it if no other more important issues
say to the contrary.
It is only a matter of time before .??? becomes something more than
what we have now. Karl is one of the first -- and this is a free
country -- where being first counts for alot in ownership. Karl is
taking a risk, but it is a very shrewd risk.
That he speaks so certainly of things just somehow touches off a nerve
in some people -- who then appear to want to spend the rest of their
lives as thorns in his side. Like pilot-fish, he seems to carry these
people along with them. Remarkably, he doesn't seem to suffer any speed
degredation as he pulls this little anti-school along :)
Many are bickering, while Karl is doing. He may not succeed, but an
outsider has to see that he has a much better chance of gaining something
out of the current controversy. His anti-school will just have to follow
him to the next controversy.
--
Jobs - Graphic Arts - Commercial Production -> http://studio.vni.net/jobs/
Virtual Networks Premier Internet Services cno...@vnii.net
Indianapolis Indianapolis Indianapolis Metro http://www.vnii.net/
Indiana Indiana Indiana
Washington DC Washington DC Washington DC Metro http://www.vni.net/
Virtual Networks Incorporated Virtual Networks of Indiana, Incorporated
Jobs - Graphic Arts - Commercial Production -> http://studio.vni.net/jobs/
abraxas
> In article <324edd76....@news.enteract.com>,
> Michael Cloran <mic...@enteract.com> wrote:
> >
> >>It'll still be the a land grab for name space, with a bunch of multi-homed
> >>corporations taking the place of the various providers that have
> >>second-tier domains. Those new TLD's will be in the same predicament as
> >>the current second-tier domains, and the authority to assign TLD's will be
> >>in the same predicament as out present NIC.
> >
> >IMHO it would be much worse than the present situation. Can you
> >imagine the life of a poor DNS administrator:
> >
> >Get up, log into Lexis/Nexis, see which court cases have been
> >resolved, update the root cache file, deal with the complaints from
> >users about certain sites not being reachable.
> >
> >I guess someone could start a service to read the court case results
> >for you and send out updates for your root cache file.... Oh but
> >wait, then *they'd* be sued....
>
> Yet *another* person who doesn't understand how DNS works. And you work for
> Enteract?
>
> Only the root servers and their operators need to be concerned about these
> things. Since reality is that only a limited number of these may exist
> (again, if you don't understand why, please LEARN before you flame) the
> problem is a bounded one and easily handled.
>
Carl Dillenger is not a legal professional. Use any and all legal advice
he offers with extreme caution.
-----yttrx
*soon to escape Carl's Plonk-o-matic; stay tuned for further
developments.....:P*
Richard Sexton
In article <slrn54u54...@enteract.com>,>29 Sep 1996 11:57:47 -0500 ka...@MCS.COM:
>>>Mr. Denninger, I am sorry, but I do not understand how initiating a
>>>newsgroup heirarchy gives you claim to a top level domain.
>>
>>Locality of use (the Internet and Usenet). Consult an attorney :-)
>
>grounds to sue someone for attempting to establish an XXX top level
>domain?
Apples and oranges. Karl's not running off suing anybody. He, 10 years
ago, started the biz hierarchy. Now, he's runnng the biz tld.
My attornet agrees with his attornet, thats a pretty good case for
prior use.
Now, I founded the eye.* useent hierarchy, this doesnt mean I can go and run out
and sue somebody else who wants to use eye as a tld. It seem to me
you're trying so hard to find fault with Karl, you're being less than objective;
indeed the term "picking a fight" comres to mind.
>I pity the poor fool who decided to register .ALT. Did Memra found that
>particular heirarchy?
No, John Gilmour and Brian Reid did. They don't mind, trust me.
>Mr. Denninger, your justification for claiming .BIZ stems from your
>personal history in forming the Usenet biz.* heirarchy; do you support the
>claims of every other would-be TLD operator, none of whom (to my
>knowledge) have "10 years prior usage" of their particular namespace
>choices?
Having a tld patterned after a usenet newsgroup is not a prerequisite,
althouh it this *particular* eaxample, it does appear to strengthen Karl's
case.
>>You just made my point for me. People don't, by and large, "guess" at the
>>DNS names they're looking for. They get them from some other source.
>
>And, under your scheme, those "other sources" are going to need to be
>constantly updated, reprinted, and redistributed, at considerable expense,
The "other places" are things like Yahoo which does not car
if you're registered in .de or .duh.
--
Richard Sexton
ro...@cabal.org
Richard Sexton
In article <slrn54uct...@enteract.com>,>29 Sep 1996 21:00:23 -0400 ric...@interlog.com:
>>Apples and oranges. Karl's not running off suing anybody. He, 10 years
>>ago, started the biz hierarchy. Now, he's runnng the biz tld.
>
>heirarchies and DNS top level domains perfectly
Disagree. Look at the geographic domains. This was an attempt
at an organizational structure imposed onto the DNS.
Such schemes are viewed as one solution to the problem of
.com being rather flat. The Higgs draft is an effort along
these lines.
Given that the de facto mandate of nameing usenet groups
is to categorize information, there may be method in that
apparant madenss, and potentially, some things to be learned
from that taxa that are indeed applicable in some way to the
DNS.
This is in the general case. In the specific case, Karls
case for biz is pretty clear.
--
Richard Sexton
ro...@cabal.org
Thomas H. Ptacek
>If a domain registrar acts as a distributor of information published by
>registrants, they stand an excellent chance of being lawsuit-proof.
[ much omitted for brevity ]
Thank you. That was an interesting explanation. I now know a little bit
more about your point of view than I did before.
>>Mr. Denninger, I am sorry, but I do not understand how initiating a
>>newsgroup heirarchy gives you claim to a top level domain.
>
>Locality of use (the Internet and Usenet). Consult an attorney :-)
So, essentially, if I started an XXX heirarchy 10 years ago, I would have
grounds to sue someone for attempting to establish an XXX top level
domain?
I pity the poor fool who decided to register .ALT. Did Memra found that
particular heirarchy?
Mr. Denninger, your justification for claiming .BIZ stems from your
personal history in forming the Usenet biz.* heirarchy; do you support the
claims of every other would-be TLD operator, none of whom (to my
knowledge) have "10 years prior usage" of their particular namespace
choices?
>You just made my point for me. People don't, by and large, "guess" at the
>DNS names they're looking for. They get them from some other source.
And, under your scheme, those "other sources" are going to need to be
constantly updated, reprinted, and redistributed, at considerable expense,
since you seem to be stating that the best way to run DNS is through
constant legal turmoil, which (it seems to me) will result in fairly
regular DNS namespace changes.
That was my original point, and I'm sorry I didn't make it clearer.
>>Unfortunately, the way you're currently handling the issue makes it
>>impossible for our organization to support you without implicitly
>>supporting your claim to .BIZ, which, at the current time, we are totally
>>unable to do.
>Why? Because you believe that there is something wrong with us using BIZ,
>or is this a personal issue?
Of course it's not a personal issue. I personally have no problem with
you running a NIC. In fact, if you had waited for the issue to be
resolved before running a business out of it, I'd've pointed customers to
your service for a better alternative to .COM.
I also have no problem with you using .BIZ. If *everyone who wanted to*
could run a TLD registry (and, contrary to your previous statements,
everyone can't, because quite a few people don't think it's the right
thing to do at this point in time), and there was a contest over .BIZ, I'd
be in total agreement that you have more claim over the name than most
(although I don't see your reasoning absolutely entitling you to
anything).
However, at the moment, I don't think what you're doing is appropriate. It
still seems to me that you're trying to take advantage of an unresolved
issue for your own benefit.
>There has been no indication that the issue will be totally resolved.
I'm not suggesting the issue needs to be totally resolved. I'm sure there
are quite a few people who will never agree with you on this (I'm not one
of them). However, right now, it seems that *most* people *do not* agree
with you. When *most* people *do* agree with you, I'll say the issue has
been satisfactorily resolved.
>They also have NSI running the commercial TLDs on the root servers! If they
>control the root servers, then why are they doing this? It is clearly NOT
>in the best interest of the net to permit this to happen -- but it is, and
>has been.
Again, many people (myself included) are in total agreement with you that
the status quo is not good. I've never argued with you about this, and
it's certainly not with this discussion is about.
>Your DNS servers are restricting that access. Which piece of your hardware
>is configured in such a fashion isn't really the point, is it?
Mr. Denninger, I'm respectfully declining further comment on this issue.
As I said before, it appears we're never going to get anywhere with it.
Again, our nameservers do not resolve "eTLD" names, because they have not
been specifically configured to do so. No packet filter in our network
prevents customers from resolving "eTLD" names using your nameservers.
>>This is absolutely untrue. My organization has never *deliberately*
>>prevented anyone from resolving "eTLD" names, nor have we *ever*
>>"deliberately configured" our DNS to "refuse to forward these queries".
>False. You have decided as an organization to load one set of root files
>over another. This was a CHOICE, and it continues to be a configuration
>CHOICE.
Not really. The established protocol determines that we get our root
files from a specific place. Taking a root file from anywhere else
represents a deliberate, specific act in support of your project.
>That's the bottom line.
Yes, it is.
>>I have complete faith in your ability to accomplish this, and am totally
>>ready to fire up a different root cache when you do. I look forward to
>>seeing how you do it.
>You have just confirmed that you have made a deliberate *CHOICE* not to
>support the eTLD namespace. Thank you Tom.
I have done no such thing. I simply stated that if you convince my
customers that you're right, I'll have no *CHOICE* but to deliberately and
specifically take actions to support your project.
>>The "vote" (and 'vote' is exactly what it will be, because as soon as the
>>majority of my customers support you, we will load your root cache file!)
>>will have a prominent place on our front web page. We will point our
>>I think this is an excellent, constructive idea, and I'm grateful that
>>you offered it to us. Thank you.
Mr. Denninger, I'm still very interested in getting your position in some
web-presentable form so I can leave this up to my customers to decide.
What say you?
--
Michael Cloran
>>Get up, log into Lexis/Nexis, see which court cases have been
>>resolved, update the root cache file, deal with the complaints from
>>users about certain sites not being reachable.
>>
>>I guess someone could start a service to read the court case results
>>for you and send out updates for your root cache file.... Oh but
>>wait, then *they'd* be sued....
>
>Yet *another* person who doesn't understand how DNS works. And you work for
>Enteract?
Thanks. :-) (I even own part of it, like most employees here!)
>Only the root servers and their operators need to be concerned about these
>things. Since reality is that only a limited number of these may exist
>(again, if you don't understand why, please LEARN before you flame) the
>problem is a bounded one and easily handled.
I guess I was unclear.
Get up, log into Lexis/Nexis, see which court cases have been
resolved, *find out which root server operators have been sued
into/out of existence*, update the root file, *find out if there are
any new restraining orders in place against root server operators
because of prior use issues,* update the root file again, deal with
the complaints from users about certain sites not being reachable.
Then log in somewhere and find out if there are any new root server
operators today and add them in too.
I was just pointing out the difficulty of letting the courts get
involved in what could potentially be a lot of cases. Imagine if
every DNS server administrator in the country had to worry about the
current domain name disputes going on at the Internic. It strikes me
as a similar, if smaller, problem.
Thomas H. Ptacek
29 Sep 1996 21:00:23 -0400 ric...@interlog.com:
>Apples and oranges. Karl's not running off suing anybody. He, 10 years
>ago, started the biz hierarchy. Now, he's runnng the biz tld.
"Apples and oranges" seems to describe the relationship between Usenet
heirarchies and DNS top level domains perfectly. Thanks for bringing it
up.
Mike Scher
Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.COM) wrote:
: In article <slrn54s7b...@enteract.com>,: >Mr. Denninger, I am sorry, but I do not understand how initiating a
: >newsgroup heirarchy gives you claim to a top level domain.
:
: Locality of use (the Internet and Usenet). Consult an attorney :-)
My dear sir, if you are asserting any kind of TRADEMARK-law-related prior
use in commerce on "biz" -- on the Internet or otherwise, and the Internet
is not a locality, it is a use in commerce on a particular medium, not a
place -- then you are the one who needs to consult the attorney. That's
not only a losing case, it's a case that might get your lawyer sanctioned.