Privatizing Internet Infrastructure at No Cost To Public?
Ronda Hauben
contract for its transfer of the public property of the domain name system,
root server system, IP numbers and the protocol process into
private hands. (These are basically the essential infrastructure
of the Internet).
Linkname: ICANN quotation
URL: http://www.icann.org/general/iana-proposal-02feb00.htm
Linkname: ICANN | IANA Contract Between the U.S. Government and ICANN
URL: http://www.icann.org/general/iana-contract-09feb00.htm
I find a bit curious, to say the least, that the procurement contract
is being used to do this privatizing of public property and control.
Someone has asked me to quantify what these functions of the
Internet are worth.
In private hands they are worth trillions today and for years
to come.
But what is the cost to the public? How does one quantify this?
Is it like taking fire from the world and replacing it with
a synthetic product that has a price tag on it?
Thinking about what the price to the public is of what is being
given to ICANN as a procurement contract is an interesting question
to try to come to grips with.
What next will be transferred from the public sector to the private
sector using a "no cost" to the public federal procurement contract.
Perhaps the Defense Department. Or perhaps the Presidency.....
This is setting a very serious constitutional precedent to say
the least.
I don't know if this is what federal procurement contracts have
been written to do in the past. However, when I quickly looked at the
law regarding Federal Procurement Contracts, I didn't find
any indication they were to be used to transfer public property
and ownership and control of public infrastructure of something
as important as the Internet into private hands and ownership and
control.
Ronda
ro...@panix.com
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook
http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers
---------------------------------
9-2 The Amateur Computerist Winter 1999/2000
"Cone of Silence" US Press Censorship and ICANN
U.S. Congressional Letters about Internet Infrastructure Give-away
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACN9-2.txt
or to subscribe write: ro...@panix.com
Arthur T. Murray
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/ ZDNet: News: Page One last week had
"Coop's Scoop: From chips to Cheops" by Charles Cooper on how the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was
planning to meet (in a fashion attributed once upon a time to
mad King George III in the Yankee Declaration of Independence:
ca. "...he has held meetings in unreasonable, far away places")
in Cairo, Egypt, near the pyramid scheme of Carlo Ponzi, no,
wait, near the Pyramid of Cheops. Observe the excerpted Talkback:
http://www.zdnet.com/tlkbck/comment/22/0,7056,85358-363296,00.html
ICANN (q.v. supra) is a rip-off of historic proportions, calculated
to turn the taxpayer-funded Internet over to greedy WTO-style
corporations. Holding the meeting in Egypt is a Machiavellian way to
look international but in reality to prevent hoi Interent polloi from
attending the meeting. Also in the week whut wuz, but not Scooped here
by Coop, transpired another sneaky ICANN maneuver to get P.T. Barnum
60-an-hour types (suckers) to sign up as "at-large" members of ICANN,
to grant the rip-off organization a broader veneer of legitimacy. Now,
there are good people involved with ICANN, such as the justly admired
Esther Dyson who is personally above reproach, but these ICANNeers are
dupes of the scam of taking the Internet away from the human race --
as represented by democratic government -- and of handing the greatest
communications vehicle in human history over to the grasping, greedy
clutches of the multinational corporations -- consolidating before our
Y2K eyes into enormous monoliths of privilege and rapaciousness.
Citizens! Netizens! Cosmopolitans! Resist the ICANN give-away
of the Internet and demand that your elected government shall
govern the Internet forever in the name of the people who paid taxes
to create the Internet -- as described by Ronda Hauben (q.v.) in
her publications on the history of the Internet. Keep the Internet
untainted and free for public domain initiatives such as the
http://www.geocities.com/mentifex/mind4th.html Mindmaker Project
and for its proper role as the information infrastructure of the
citizens of the world -- NOT the private property of big corporations.
Save the Internet from ICANN now, or lose the Internet and eventually
Freedom itself.
Gary
and it is "transferred" to someone else - without any "gain" to yourself -
isn't that most certainly a "loss"? Heh heh, what slick bastards.
Undoubtably the biggest swindle of the history of the world - "at no cost to
the public". And all accomplished with a little "spin". Maybe it's time to
show them how stupid we really _aren't_.
Gary
Ronda Hauben wrote in message <8a0bok$104$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>...
Samuel W. Heywood
As long as all us proletarians are allowed to posess computers and to
have telephone service and are permitted freedom of expression, then it
would be impossible for any government or private corporation to own or
govern the internet.
Whenever an attempt is made to suppress freedom of expression, the people
will revolt anyway, and without even the need of anyone's having
to advocate such a rebellion. So don't worry about it. People are
revolting!
All the best,
Sam Heywood
-- This mail sent by PC-Pine, v.3.96 for DOS, http://www.washington.edu/pine
Richard J. Sexton
You are deluding yourself. The US goverment controls the legacy
root servers. Ask them yourself.
--
Richard Sexton | ric...@tangled.web | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.net http://www.mbz.org http://www.dnso.com
Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719
Miguel Cruz
Yeah, but what can you do? Just hold your nose and try to carry on.
miguel
Samuel W. Heywood
<snip>
> In article
> Samuel W. Heywood <samuel_...@subdimension.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> You are deluding yourself. The US goverment controls the legacy
> root servers. Ask them yourself.
Anyone may set up his own internet server, with or without government
controls. It would be as simple as setting up a clandestine radio
broadcast. All you have to do is set up your equipment and do your
own thing, and then pack up and split the scene before the authorities
catch you.
Richard J. Sexton
Samuel W. Heywood <samuel_...@subdimension.com> wrote:
>On 8 Mar 2000, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> In article
>
>> Samuel W. Heywood <samuel_...@subdimension.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>>
>> You are deluding yourself. The US goverment controls the legacy
>> root servers. Ask them yourself.
>
>Anyone may set up his own internet server, with or without government
>controls. It would be as simple as setting up a clandestine radio
>broadcast. All you have to do is set up your equipment and do your
>own thing, and then pack up and split the scene before the authorities
>catch you.
Sure, the difference is radios aren't shipped outof thebox hard coded
to listen to the single government station.
Eric A. Hall
> Sure, the difference is radios aren't shipped outof thebox hard coded
> to listen to the single government station.
Hmm. Bad analogy. It's more like the single root is ensuring that
multiple broadcasters don't try to use the exact same frequency. Without
it, we'd have a lot more of the basement pirate broadcasters than we
already do.
--
Eric A. Hall eh...@ehsco.com
+1-650-685-0557 http://www.ehsco.com
Richard J. Sexton
>
>> Sure, the difference is radios aren't shipped outof thebox hard coded
>> to listen to the single government station.
>
>Hmm. Bad analogy. It's more like the single root is ensuring that
>multiple broadcasters don't try to use the exact same frequency. Without
>it, we'd have a lot more of the basement pirate broadcasters than we
If I understand you correctly - and please correct me if I don't
what you're saying amounts to "we need a single root, otherwise
one persons yahoo.com wn't resolve to the same IP as another
persons yahoo.com" which strikes me as pure FUD. Anybody that
sets up a root serevr cluster that has TLDS that collide
deserves to get laughed off the face of the Interent.
The idea is to add enhanced new services, not break existing ones.
Eric A. Hall
> The idea is to add enhanced new services, not break existing ones.
I'm not arguing that. I'm saying the analogy is a bad one, and that was
in the context of:
>>> It would be as simple as setting up a clandestine radio
>>> broadcast.
--
Mike Coburn
I am missing the point here. I am very worried about the internet
backbone and the speed of that backbone or the way in which speed is
allocated on the basis of who pays. I can imagine sound and moving
imagery totally swamping the backbone so some terd can sell more
toothpaste. Anyone with any desire for discussion of real issues will be
relegated to the "slow lane" (that is if any such lanes are actually to be
maintained) The first salvos are, of course, the tax crap, and the
pornography crap. The idea is to destroy any use of the internet in
actual debates and/or as a source for honest news as opposed to the pre
washed spin doctored crap you get from the current corporate owned
networks. The plan seems to be working quite well as the ads need more
and more bandwidth and require that the backbone be very expensive so as
to carry all those ads. Pretty soon it will be like the post office.
The post office delivers ads (3rd class mail) and subsidizes that delivery
by delivering your monthly bills and banks statements and such by first
class mail. The internet backbone will be in business so as to deliver
ads and the delivery of the ads will be subsidized by charging the real
citizenry for services. This will be done as a tax on wages or a tax on
internet use or a tax on sales or just by charging the Internet Service
Providers a lot more and they will pass the cost to you. If you want
access you must pay and then you get to see all those pretty ads. It
really is very predictable.
Samuel W. Heywood
On 8 Mar 2000, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> In article <38C71DBF...@ehsco.com>, Eric A. Hall <eh...@ehsco.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Sure, the difference is radios aren't shipped outof thebox hard coded
> >> to listen to the single government station.
> >
> >Hmm. Bad analogy. It's more like the single root is ensuring that
> >multiple broadcasters don't try to use the exact same frequency. Without
> >it, we'd have a lot more of the basement pirate broadcasters than we
>
> If I understand you correctly - and please correct me if I don't
> what you're saying amounts to "we need a single root, otherwise
> one persons yahoo.com wn't resolve to the same IP as another
> persons yahoo.com" which strikes me as pure FUD. Anybody that
> sets up a root serevr cluster that has TLDS that collide
> deserves to get laughed off the face of the Interent.
>
> The idea is to add enhanced new services, not break existing ones.
OK, so maybe my analogy was really bad. Anybody can set up web sites
having content prohibited by the government, and then split the scene and
move on before getting caught. Also if the internet were to fall under
too many restrictive controls, then people could set up a network of
private BBSs. There is not very much governments can do nowadays to
effectively prohibit communication. That is the point I wanted to make.
Andrew McLaren
"Arthur T. Murray" <uj...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:38c3...@news.victoria.tc.ca...
> Proletarians of the World Wide Web, unite against ICANN!
- Last year ICANN met in Berlin, Singapore and Santiago de Chile. Cairo is
no departure from this trend, which is desirably international.
- It is easier and quicker for someone in Europe to travel to Cairo than to,
say, Chicago.
- The Internet does not belong to the US government. Not since DARPA days,
anyway.
- "Arthur T Murray"? Oh please ... that has got to be a pseudonym.
- where's Ronda when she's needed? ;-)
Alan J Rosenthal
>Samuel W. Heywood <samuel_...@subdimension.com> wrote:
And U Washington seems to control his newsreader.
Richard J. Sexton
Andrew McLaren <andrew...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>- The Internet does not belong to the US government. Not since DARPA days,
>anyway.
The US government controls domain name space. Now, what do you think
the relative "contributions" are to the USG from big business compared
to your average net user. (Hint, I've heard IBM has bragged in private
that it's spent $120 million so far on ICANN to ensure there are
no new tlds. AT&T is suspected of having spent the same. Who picked
the ICANN initial board - Ira Magaziner and Roger Cochetti of IBM;
who funded ICANN initially? The "GIP" funded largely by, you guessed
it IBM.)
Also, can anybody find much of a differene between the current ICANN
implemen6tation and IAHC?
1994: Postel said "There should be 300 new tlds, with 150 this year"
1995: A TM lawyer infested IAHC said there will be 7
2000: Working group C's report to ICANN: there should be 6-10
new tlds.
The *point* of many new tlds is to dilute the money any one registry
will make; 6-10 tlds will aggrevate not reduce the speculation problem.
In the earliest days, people involved in discussions about new domains
actually knew how to configure and operate nameservers. The great
majority of participants in ICANN Cairo are businessmen and lawyers
who can't spaell. They aren't there to speed along the process
of making new tlds.
But hey, the NSI monopoly has been "devolved" according to the USG
so it's only worth $21B when it sells to verisgn. Good thing it
was "devolved" I can't imaguing what it'd be woeth if it hadn't
been. In reality the "devolution" of NSI just gave it new sales
channels; com is still the only "game in town" and essentially
the monopoly is unchanged.
Steve Sobol
>I am missing the point here. I am very worried about the internet
>backbone and the speed of that backbone or the way in which speed is
>allocated on the basis of who pays.
It already works that way, just like it should. Do you think laying
fiber-optic cables like 155 Mbps OC48's doesn't cost money?
--
North Shore Technologies, Cleveland, OH http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net
Steve Sobol, President, Chief Website Architect and Janitor
sjs...@NorthShoreTechnologies.net - 888.480.4NET - 216.619.2NET
Eric Edwards
>From 'Mike Coburn':
>
>>I am missing the point here. I am very worried about the internet
>>backbone and the speed of that backbone or the way in which speed is
>>allocated on the basis of who pays.
>
>It already works that way, just like it should. Do you think laying
>fiber-optic cables like 155 Mbps OC48's doesn't cost money?
One would hope there would be a discount, at least. OC48's are supposed
to run a 2.4Gbps.
--
Real courtesy requires human effort and understanding.
Never let your machine or your habit send courtesy copies.
Richard J. Sexton
>
>Internet resources.
Ok ok, the US Government controls the top level of the DNS namespace.
>>The *point* of many new tlds is to dilute the money any one registry
>>will make; 6-10 tlds will aggrevate not reduce the speculation problem.
>
>Assuming, of course, that enough people bother to register in any new
>tld registries. If enough people believe in "dot com", it won't
>matter if new tld registries are free; people will still register in
>ICANN-approved registries because they believe this is what they
>should do.
I dunno. Ambler has 15,000 *paid* .web registrations. They
pay fo rrenewals every year.
>Look at .us for example; there are lots of names available there; many
>names registered in .com, .net, or .org could exist there, within its
>hierarchy. Few bother to register there because they believe they
>need to be in .com, .net, or .org.
Either that or they think .US is stoopid.
>The people who care to operate nameservers running new tlds are not
>prevented by ICANN from doing so. Mike Roberts even said so. Rather,
>it is their inability to convince people to follow their lead. I am
>sorry that this sounds mean or harsh, but it is the underlying truth
>of the matter. The new tld crowd has not convinced the public at
>large that it should adopt new tlds.
Errr, no. The public ar large loves new tlds. The borderline
slander and libel fromthe usual cast of nitwits has more
to do with their lack of acceptance second only to Eugene
Kashureff. IMO, he set this whole thing back 5 years.
>Like I said above, this is largely because people feel they ought to
>register there.
Put .biz in the legacy root tomorrow and watch it erode. Quickly.
Richard J. Sexton
Greg Skinner <g...@best.com> wrote:
>In article <8a73qd$47j$1...@ns1.vrx.net>,
>Richard J. Sexton <ric...@ns1.vrx.net> wrote:
>>In article <Pine.PCP.3.96.1000308185403.27444A-100000@[204.111.21.80]>,
>>>controls. It would be as simple as setting up a clandestine radio
>>>broadcast. All you have to do is set up your equipment and do your
>>>own thing, and then pack up and split the scene before the authorities
>>>catch you.
>
>>to listen to the single government station.
>
>have been allocated by governments.
>
>In comparison, anyone who is so inclined may edit a root.cache file to
>point it to the root service of their choosing.
That's like sayting if you take your radio apart and swap
out a few components you can get all the stations. A more
accurate analogy would be if the nameserver code gave
you options so which root server cluster you wanted to
use. The USG controlled one, or the other ones with
all the names working.
Greg Skinner
The US government controls a set of servers that provide resolution of
Internet resources.
>The *point* of many new tlds is to dilute the money any one registry
>will make; 6-10 tlds will aggrevate not reduce the speculation problem.
Assuming, of course, that enough people bother to register in any new
tld registries. If enough people believe in "dot com", it won't
matter if new tld registries are free; people will still register in
ICANN-approved registries because they believe this is what they
should do.
Look at .us for example; there are lots of names available there; many
names registered in .com, .net, or .org could exist there, within its
hierarchy. Few bother to register there because they believe they
need to be in .com, .net, or .org.
>In the earliest days, people involved in discussions about new domains
>actually knew how to configure and operate nameservers. The great
>majority of participants in ICANN Cairo are businessmen and lawyers
>who can't spaell.
>They aren't there to speed along the process of making new tlds.
The people who care to operate nameservers running new tlds are not
prevented by ICANN from doing so. Mike Roberts even said so. Rather,
it is their inability to convince people to follow their lead. I am
sorry that this sounds mean or harsh, but it is the underlying truth
of the matter. The new tld crowd has not convinced the public at
large that it should adopt new tlds.
>But hey, the NSI monopoly has been "devolved" according to the USG
>so it's only worth $21B when it sells to verisgn. Good thing it
>was "devolved" I can't imaguing what it'd be woeth if it hadn't
>been. In reality the "devolution" of NSI just gave it new sales
>channels; com is still the only "game in town" and essentially
>the monopoly is unchanged.
Like I said above, this is largely because people feel they ought to
register there.
--gregbo
gds at best.com
Greg Skinner
>Samuel W. Heywood <samuel_...@subdimension.com> wrote:
>>Anyone may set up his own internet server, with or without government
>>controls. It would be as simple as setting up a clandestine radio
>>broadcast. All you have to do is set up your equipment and do your
>>own thing, and then pack up and split the scene before the authorities
>>catch you.
>Sure, the difference is radios aren't shipped outof thebox hard coded
>to listen to the single government station.
But they are shipped hard coded to tune to a range of frequencies that
have been allocated by governments.
In comparison, anyone who is so inclined may edit a root.cache file to
point it to the root service of their choosing.
--gregbo
gds at best.com
Mike Coburn
> From 'Mike Coburn':
>
> >I am missing the point here. I am very worried about the internet
> >backbone and the speed of that backbone or the way in which speed is
> >allocated on the basis of who pays.
>
> It already works that way, just like it should. Do you think laying
> fiber-optic cables like 155 Mbps OC48's doesn't cost money?
>
> --
> North Shore Technologies, Cleveland, OH http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net
> Steve Sobol, President, Chief Website Architect and Janitor
> sjs...@NorthShoreTechnologies.net - 888.480.4NET - 216.619.2NET
The cost is one side. The who pays and who is served? The expense of the
backbone is large no matter what you do. The questions lie in the allocation
of costs and the allocation of bandwidth.
You apparently believe that radio and television stations should be owned and
operated by private corporations as they currently are. You seem to have no
problems with the fact that the news that is presented is that which is
favorable to the corporate masters. No problem with the lack of a "free"
press, so long as that freedom is only stomped on by whoever has the most
money, as opposed to being stomped on by a "government". What seems to
always evade some people is the idea that government is supposed to represent
the will of those being governed. If that were true then why would be in
fear of government? More importantly, why is it not true? Could it be that
it is not true because the people with all the money have managed to control
the press and the politicians to a point at which no real information can
ever reach the populous, to a point where none of the real issues are ever
heard or discussed?
The problem is in the allocation of bandwidth. The total drowning of all
available bandwidth with more and more advertisements such that less and less
information can get through. The price for supporting all those ads is going
to be quite high. It will offer the owners of the backbone a very good way
to control the allocation of bandwidth.
Eric A. Hall
> No problem with the lack of a "free" press, so long as that freedom
> is only stomped on by whoever has the most money, as opposed to being
> stomped on by a "government".
Your post is an exercise of the freedom of the press. Everybody that
publishes is "the press."
Arthur T. Murray
article on the evil ICANN: "Want a top-level domain? Be patient."
On Usenet the truth is finally coming out, thanks to 'Net heroes
who have posted their inside knowledge, as submitted to Talkback:
Please see the Usenet thread in alt.folklore.computers on the
subject: Proletarians of the World Wide Web, unite against ICANN!
A recent Coop's Scoop here on ZDNet has led to the raging Usenet
controversy in which the heavyweights of Domain Name Servers are
revealing the dirty tricks of the USG (U.S. Government) vis-a-vis
the rest of the (submissive) world. One expert has said that if
he disclosed how the USG controls the foreign root servers, we
would call him a raving lunatic. Starting here from Ziff-Davis
Net, watch history being made in Y2K, and why not join in with
your own contribution to save the World, the 'Net, and the
http://www.geocities.com/mentifex/mind4th.html Mindmaker Project
from the powers of darkness?
Jay Maynard
>On Usenet the truth is finally coming out, thanks to 'Net heroes
>who have posted their inside knowledge, as submitted to Talkback:
For sufficiently small values of "truth". What color is the sky in your and
Ronda Hauben's world?
>A recent Coop's Scoop here on ZDNet has led to the raging Usenet
>controversy
The only thing raging - which really should be raving - is you and Richard
"scientific fish" Sexton.
Greg Skinner
>out a few components you can get all the stations. A more
>accurate analogy would be if the nameserver code gave
>you options so which root server cluster you wanted to
>use. The USG controlled one, or the other ones with
>all the names working.
Perhaps I'm missing your point, but the nameserver code *does* give you
options for which root server cluster you want to use. You need only
configure it to point to the root server cluster you are interested in
using.
Even nslookup allows you to specify a server from which to resolve
names.
--gregbo
gds at best.com
Greg Skinner
>slander and libel fromthe usual cast of nitwits has more
>to do with their lack of acceptance second only to Eugene
>Kashureff. IMO, he set this whole thing back 5 years.
The public at large doesn't even know there are new (non-IANA root)
tlds. Most of them don't even know all of the ccTLDs.
>Put .biz in the legacy root tomorrow and watch it erode. Quickly.
We'll see. Another thing you have to consider is that NSI might
become a registrar for .biz, in which case it will just become another
"dot com."
--gregbo
gds at best.com
Richard J. Sexton
Jay Maynard <jmay...@texas.net> wrote:
>The only thing raging - which really should be raving - is you and Richard
>"scientific fish" Sexton.
How nice to hear from you Jay. Be nice now, It's not like I'm
lobbying for sci.domains. So what do you think of ICANN, Jay ?
"Sci.aquaria has succeded in spite of, not because of Richard Sexton"
- Jay Maynard
Richard J. Sexton
>
>We'll see. Another thing you have to consider is that NSI might
>become a registrar for .biz, in which case it will just become another
>"dot com".
Isn't that what we want? Lots of "dot coms".
Richard J. Sexton
Greg Skinner <g...@nospam.best.com> wrote:
>In article <8a9ptv$n8$1...@ns1.vrx.net>,
>>out a few components you can get all the stations. A more
>>accurate analogy would be if the nameserver code gave
>>you options so which root server cluster you wanted to
>>use. The USG controlled one, or the other ones with
>>all the names working.
>
>Perhaps I'm missing your point, but the nameserver code *does* give you
>options for which root server cluster you want to use. You need only
>configure it to point to the root server cluster you are interested in
>using.
With a radio you get instructions "turn the dial" on how to reive
other signale.
Show me the instructions that come with BIND that tell you how to
point to different root clusters. People close to Paul have
asked him to do this. The answer is always no.
Ron Newman
<slrn8cig5r....@thebrain.conmicro.cx>, jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx
stated...
>
>On 10 Mar 2000 10:11:47 -0800, Arthur T. Murray <uj...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>>On Usenet the truth is finally coming out, thanks to 'Net heroes
>>who have posted their inside knowledge, as submitted to Talkback:
>
>For sufficiently small values of "truth". What color is the sky in your and
>Ronda Hauben's world?
What's your beef with Ronda? She has done a great job documenting the
history and evolution of both Usenet and the Internet, and her concerns
about privitization of the domain naming system should be carefully
considered.
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/home.html
Greg Skinner
Richard J. Sexton <ric...@ns1.vrx.net> wrote:
>Show me the instructions that come with BIND that tell you how to
>point to different root clusters. People close to Paul have
>asked him to do this. The answer is always no.
Actually, that isn't entirely true. He *was* going to consult with
the CIX to ask what instructions he should give for root.cache
configuration if there had not been a resolution to the DNS debacle
that he was happy with. Since he is happy (enough) with ICANN, that's
why there aren't any instructions. However, that is not the point of
my message. Anyone who cares can edit the root.cache file to point at
whatever they want. It requires much more modification to a radio to
get it to point at different frequencies than the manufacturer set
up.
If you want there to be different instructions to BIND, why don't you
take over its maintenance and distribution? Or why don't you publish
separate instructions under cover? I recall asking you to do this
several months ago, and you complained you didn't have time. Why do
you have enough time to continue to argue on these lists and
newsgroups, instead of doing something proactive, like writing and
publishing instructions on accessing different root clusters?
http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone/ and
http://support.open-rsc.org/How_To/ are a start. Let's see a
comprehensive document.
--gregbo
gds at best.com
Richard J. Sexton
Greg Skinner <g...@best.com> wrote:
>In article <8abl59$qkr$1...@ns1.vrx.net>,
>Richard J. Sexton <ric...@ns1.vrx.net> wrote:
>>Show me the instructions that come with BIND that tell you how to
>>point to different root clusters. People close to Paul have
>>asked him to do this. The answer is always no.
>
>Actually, that isn't entirely true. He *was* going to consult with
>the CIX to ask what instructions he should give for root.cache
>configuration if there had not been a resolution to the DNS debacle
And that's the problem! Paul has always been, um, very authritarian[1]
and rather than publish "here are 3 root caches that seem to work,
pick the one you like" he says "this is THE root cache" and frequesntly
says the other ones don't exist or that they do exist but are
run by crazies.
The problem being, he is placing himself in the position that he
will decide what everubody on the Interent gets for DNS names
rather than let poeple decide for themselves, and morseo,
discourages vehemently any other choice and has a vested
interest in that choice.
To say nothing of the fact the colleciton of "crazies" is
more or less spearheeded by his former boss, best friend
and guy who allocated $2M of funding for him to write BIND
in the first place.
>that he was happy with. Since he is happy (enough) with ICANN, that's
>why there aren't any instructions. However, that is not the point of
>my message. Anyone who cares can edit the root.cache file to point at
>whatever they want. It requires much more modification to a radio to
>get it to point at different frequencies than the manufacturer set
>up.
I don't seem to be geting the point across:
Radio: you get insrtuctions how to change the channel.
BIND: There are no other channels.
Then of course you find out there are.
>If you want there to be different instructions to BIND, why don't you
>take over its maintenance and distribution? Or why don't you publish
>separate instructions under cover? I recall asking you to do this
>several months ago, and you complained you didn't have time. Why do
>you have enough time to continue to argue on these lists and
>newsgroups, instead of doing something proactive, like writing and
>publishing instructions on accessing different root clusters?
>http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone/ and
>http://support.open-rsc.org/How_To/ are a start. Let's see a
>comprehensive document.
Lots of poeple have had no problem with those instructions,
but there is merit in what you say, they could use a bit of
work, so I will indeed do that starting tonight.
>--gregbo
>gds at best.com
[1] Paul was the only member of the ill fated "Usenet backbone cabal"
that wanted ALT.* destroyed.
Peter Seebach
I can't speak for him, but mine is that she's a kook.
>She has done a great job documenting the
>history and evolution of both Usenet and the Internet,
Through *VERY* aggressive filters to report the "good" history.
>and her concerns
>about privitization of the domain naming system should be carefully
>considered.
Quite possibly, but I have yet to see a coherent argument, just lots of
hand-waving and, uhm, fascinating assertions about history, most of which
are not confirmed by the greybeards who were there.
I'm reading this in alt.folklore.computers, where we have a substantial
population of people who were *THERE*. Hell, I'm a relative newbie around
here, and *I* remember before the Great Renaming. Most of these people have
gotten sick of even *trying* to correct her "history" of the internet, because
*corrections that do not mesh with her goals will never be adopted*.
She's a politician first, and a historian second.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636
Richard J. Sexton
>>about privitization of the domain naming system should be carefully
>>considered.
>
>Quite possibly,
Considered, then tossed in the trash. Governments of the world,
who Ronda would like to have run the Internet, had their
shot at this with the ISO protocol suite. Not only did
governments of the world not help the Internet in any
way, they ipded it's development and it it were not
for Tony Rutkowski who at the time was general counsel
in the ITU, stepping up and crafting a resultion,
thenthe Internet would today be *illegal*.
I posit that the Interent succeeded not because of
darpa funding which Ronda assets is the reason the USG
should hold on to it, but the *people* that innovated
and engineered lifes frst breath into this thing.
The great irony here now is, world governments, specifically
the US government through it's hand picked minion, ICANN
and it's "Government Advisory Counsel" - which we just
found out is Cairo was actually an ITU list of representatives,
want to rule over the Interent namespace.
But! They already *have* a namespace to rule over. The ISO F.401
X.400 namespace is legally under their control. More ironicaly
the US registratr for this is none other than Becky Burr who
is (mis)manahging ICANN.
So they had their shot. Nobody used it, and now they want
to take over our system of identifiers.
>but I have yet to see a coherent argument, just lots of
>hand-waving and, uhm, fascinating assertions about history, most of which
>are not confirmed by the greybeards who were there.
>
>I'm reading this in alt.folklore.computers, where we have a substantial
>population of people who were *THERE*. Hell, I'm a relative newbie around
>here, and *I* remember before the Great Renaming. Most of these people have
>gotten sick of even *trying* to correct her "history" of the internet, because
>*corrections that do not mesh with her goals will never be adopted*.
I knew it was a crock when I realized there was nothing about tropical
fish in there :-)
Richard J. Sexton
Greg Skinner <g...@best.com> wrote:
>In article <8ac35f$5ae$1...@ns1.vrx.net>,>>I don't think you really understand what monopoly means.
>
>You and I can argue forever about what monopoly might mean in this
>context. The long and short of it is that the USG solution to the
>problem was to open up the NSI Registry to other registrars. You
>might be dissatisfied, but that does not mean the process was not
>legitimate.
Hahahah. Suuuure. ICANN "fixed" the NSI monopoly by giving
it great press and more sales channels and now it looks like
an Amway MLM and is only worth TWENTY ONE BILLION DOLLARS.
I don't want ICANN to make new TLDS. If they do that as badly
as they handled "fixing the NSI monopoly" [1] we're freaking
doomed.
[1] the obvious fix is to make lots of new tlds as Jon Postel
correcly pointed out 6 years ago; NSI would be one of
maybe a hundred or so companes competing against each
other in a healthy free market.
It seems really odd to me that we spent such a huge amount
of money and timefighting the socialist notion of a planned
economy and now we're forcing that model on the Internet.
Richard J. Sexton
Greg Skinner <g...@best.com> wrote:
}In article <8abuhp$2j3$1...@ns1.vrx.net>,
}>and rather than publish "here are 3 root caches that seem to work,
}>pick the one you like" he says "this is THE root cache" and frequesntly
}>says the other ones don't exist or that they do exist but are
}>run by crazies.
}
}Perhaps that is part of the reason he does not include documentation
}on how to use other root clusters.
You're incing semantics. COM seems to work. I can't say the
legacy root servers seem to work properly. They're not
exacly up all the time and are frequently not in sync.
}>I don't seem to be geting the point across:
}
}>Radio: you get insrtuctions how to change the channel.
}>BIND: There are no other channels.
}
}>Then of course you find out there are.
}
}We are talking past each other here. I acknowledge your point; you do
}not acknowledge mine that it is a simple matter of reconfiguration to
}get access to other root clusters with the BIND distribution; it is
}quite another story to get other frequencies on a standard-issue
}radio.
You're right, I don't get your point. In both cases you have
to go and investigate how to do it, the "manufacturor" will
not tell you.
}>Lots of poeple have had no problem with those instructions,
}>but there is merit in what you say, they could use a bit of
}>work, so I will indeed do that starting tonight.
}
}IMHO, if you really want use (registration plus access) of new TLDs to
}be equal to that of the IANA TLDs, you need to do quite a bit of
}work. Here is what I would do, if I were one of the people
}spearheading this project:
}
}* Write a comprehensive document, like the MAPS documentation.
}* Try to get it indexed in as many search engines as possible. A
} search for "alternative TLDs" or "alternative roots" ought to point
} someone to your documentation readily.
}* Write an RFC (like Jim Kingdon suggested in net.internet.dns.policy)
} in response to the IAB's "single root" recommendation.
}* If you can't get cooperation from the IETF, try some other
} organizations, e.g. BayLISA, to support it.
}* Make presentations at Usenix conferences, etc. Hold BOFs. You get
} the idea ... get the word out to as many people as possible.
Keep typing...
Greg Skinner
Richard J. Sexton <ric...@ns1.vrx.net> wrote:
>And that's the problem! Paul has always been, um, very authritarian[1]
>and rather than publish "here are 3 root caches that seem to work,
>pick the one you like" he says "this is THE root cache" and frequesntly
>says the other ones don't exist or that they do exist but are
>run by crazies.
"seem to work" is quite a ways (imho) from work predictably well.
Perhaps that is part of the reason he does not include documentation
on how to use other root clusters.
>To say nothing of the fact the colleciton of "crazies" is
>more or less spearheeded by his former boss, best friend
>and guy who allocated $2M of funding for him to write BIND
>in the first place.
Stranger things have happened.
>I don't seem to be geting the point across:
>Radio: you get insrtuctions how to change the channel.
>BIND: There are no other channels.
>Then of course you find out there are.
We are talking past each other here. I acknowledge your point; you do
not acknowledge mine that it is a simple matter of reconfiguration to
get access to other root clusters with the BIND distribution; it is
quite another story to get other frequencies on a standard-issue
radio.
>Lots of poeple have had no problem with those instructions,
>but there is merit in what you say, they could use a bit of
>work, so I will indeed do that starting tonight.
IMHO, if you really want use (registration plus access) of new TLDs to
be equal to that of the IANA TLDs, you need to do quite a bit of
work. Here is what I would do, if I were one of the people
spearheading this project:
* Write a comprehensive document, like the MAPS documentation.
* Try to get it indexed in as many search engines as possible. A
search for "alternative TLDs" or "alternative roots" ought to point
someone to your documentation readily.
* Write an RFC (like Jim Kingdon suggested in net.internet.dns.policy)
in response to the IAB's "single root" recommendation.
* If you can't get cooperation from the IETF, try some other
organizations, e.g. BayLISA, to support it.
* Make presentations at Usenix conferences, etc. Hold BOFs. You get
the idea ... get the word out to as many people as possible.
--gregbo
gds at best.com
Mike Coburn
Snore...
You simply do not comprehend what is happening. The light at the end of
your tunnel is the train coming towards you, but you are so enamored with
your own comprehension of the darkness that the light and sound do not
intrude. I have said what I have to say. You will either take the time
to use your brain or you will not.
Mike Dimmick
news:8a9ptv$n8$1...@ns1.vrx.net...
> In article <38c84822$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
> Greg Skinner <g...@best.com> wrote:
> >In article <8a73qd$47j$1...@ns1.vrx.net>,
<Pine.PCP.3.96.1000308185403.27444A-100000@[204.111.21.80]>,
> >>Samuel W. Heywood <samuel_...@subdimension.com> wrote:
> >>>Anyone may set up his own internet server, with or without
government
> >>>controls. It would be as simple as setting up a clandestine radio
> >>>broadcast. All you have to do is set up your equipment and do your
> >>>own thing, and then pack up and split the scene before the
authorities
> >>>catch you.
> >
> >>Sure, the difference is radios aren't shipped outof thebox hard
coded
> >>to listen to the single government station.
> >
> >But they are shipped hard coded to tune to a range of frequencies
that
> >have been allocated by governments.
> >
> >In comparison, anyone who is so inclined may edit a root.cache file
to
> >point it to the root service of their choosing.
>
> out a few components you can get all the stations. A more
> accurate analogy would be if the nameserver code gave
> you options so which root server cluster you wanted to
> use. The USG controlled one, or the other ones with
> all the names working.
It does give you the option. But you need to know how to do it. A DNS
admin should learn how to do this as part of the process of setting up
their own domains.
The standard out-of-the-box configuration for *precompiled* BINDs
generally is for a caching nameserver, which I think now mostly gets
configured by an installation tool to forward queries to an ISP (this is
generally the case for Linux distributions), because that's what 99% of
Linux users want.
Of course, it's already been pointed out multiple times in this thread
that ccTLDs != US Government; please note that most ccTLDs are not going
to want to have to register changes with lots of root domains. The
whole point of DNS is that it is a *single* rooted protocol with a
*single* authority for any one domain. As soon as you start, yes,
pissing about with multiple authorities, you break the whole DNS
concept.
I guess that most admins have the same mentality: they only want to have
to register changes to their parent domain servers (servers that have
authority for the parent zone) to the admin contact for that parent
zone. Needing to know lots of people and lots of addresses becomes very
tricky very fast.
Proletarians of the Internet, unite under one Root!
(Internet != WWW)
*grin*
--
Mike Dimmick
jmfb...@aol.com
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
>In article <8ablv8$1n...@edrn.newsguy.com>,
>Ron Newman <rne...@thecia.net> wrote:
>>What's your beef with Ronda?
>
>I can't speak for him, but mine is that she's a kook.
She's a very dangerous kook, IMO.
>
>>She has done a great job documenting the
>>history and evolution of both Usenet and the Internet,
>
>Through *VERY* aggressive filters to report the "good" history.
She isn't reporting anything. She seems to be making it up
as she goes along and absolutely refuses to listen to those
who have been trying to correct her mistakes.
>
>>and her concerns
>>about privitization of the domain naming system should be carefully
>>considered.
>
>Quite possibly, but I have yet to see a coherent argument, just lots of
>hand-waving and, uhm, fascinating assertions about history, most of which
>are not confirmed by the greybeards who were there.
>
>I'm reading this in alt.folklore.computers, where we have a substantial
>population of people who were *THERE*. Hell, I'm a relative newbie around
>here, and *I* remember before the Great Renaming. Most of these people
have
>gotten sick of even *trying* to correct her "history" of the internet,
because
>*corrections that do not mesh with her goals will never be adopted*.
>
>She's a politician first, and a historian second.
And _that's_ why we have to keep correcting her. I had no idea
that this thread was about her figments of disinformation.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Greg Skinner
>legacy root servers seem to work properly. They're not
>exacly up all the time and are frequently not in sync.
The IANA root works predictably well. Lots of people trust it. It's
your job to convince others that the ORSC root works predictably well.
--gregbo
gds at best.com
Greg Skinner
>it great press and more sales channels and now it looks like
>an Amway MLM and is only worth TWENTY ONE BILLION DOLLARS.
C'mon ... NSI had mindshare even before the IAHC existed. NSI was
going to make money and increase its valuation anyway, because NSF
gave them the go-ahead to charge for registrations.
>[1] the obvious fix is to make lots of new tlds as Jon Postel
>correcly pointed out 6 years ago; NSI would be one of
>maybe a hundred or so companes competing against each
>other in a healthy free market.
Again, this assumes that people register in those new TLDs as much
as they do in the legacy TLDs. Open registration in TLDs like .to
doesn't seem to have put much of a dent in NSI's revenue stream.
--gregbo
gds at best.com
Richard J. Sexton
Greg Skinner <g...@nospam.best.com> wrote:
>In article <8acf79$act$1...@ns1.vrx.net>,
>>legacy root servers seem to work properly. They're not
>>exacly up all the time and are frequently not in sync.
>
>The IANA root works predictably well. Lots of people trust it. It's
>your job to convince others that the ORSC root works predictably well.
No, it's my job to convince poeple it works better. If it only
works as well, why bother?
Richard J. Sexton
Greg Skinner <g...@nospam.best.com> wrote:
>In article <8aceb4$9l1$1...@ns1.vrx.net>,
>>it great press and more sales channels and now it looks like
>>an Amway MLM and is only worth TWENTY ONE BILLION DOLLARS.
>
>C'mon ... NSI had mindshare even before the IAHC existed. NSI was
>going to make money and increase its valuation anyway, because NSF
>gave them the go-ahead to charge for registrations.
Blatent misinformation. NSF never gave NSI a "go ahead" to
charge for domains.
When it bacame clear the com zone was growing exponentially
the NSF was becoming concerned it was subsidizing commercial
exploitaiton of the domain name system. Since the scope of
it;s funding of the InterNIC project was to primarly foster
a US academic and research network a deliberative process
began which can be summarized as "the FNCAC met and suggested
that NSF direct NSI to collect fees for domain registration."
NSF did that, and also collected 30% for an "intellectual
infrastructure fund". "Intellectual infrastructure" is people
and the monsy was supposed to be used for travel expenses, workshops;
in the words of theman who created it "it was to keep the
"IETF *process* pure". People from all over the worls payed
into this fund and the US congress appropriatedit to spend
on upgrading US University infrastructure.
But I digress.
I din't understand your point; my point is that from 94
on it's been obvious that the com zone is too flat and
a market failure exists for top level names thatgave NSI
a de facto monopoly. The solution was clear from 94 on:
create new tlds registries. Go back and look at the
original NSF contracts, especialy the part that says
"and create other Internics" and "become self funding".
But, the trademark lobby in the US is *increadably* powerful
and no new domains, nonew internic were created because of
that.
>>[1] the obvious fix is to make lots of new tlds as Jon Postel
>>correcly pointed out 6 years ago; NSI would be one of
>>maybe a hundred or so companes competing against each
>>other in a healthy free market.
>
>Again, this assumes that people register in those new TLDs as much
>as they do in the legacy TLDs. Open registration in TLDs like .to
>doesn't seem to have put much of a dent in NSI's revenue stream.
That will pass. It just takes time and dollare to educate
poeple. .COM will seem like an antique in a few years.
Brian Inglis
Sexton) wrote:
>In article <38c944b1$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
>Greg Skinner <g...@nospam.best.com> wrote:
>>In article <8a9ptv$n8$1...@ns1.vrx.net>,
>>Richard J. Sexton <ric...@ns1.vrx.net> wrote:
>>>That's like sayting if you take your radio apart and swap
>>>out a few components you can get all the stations. A more
>>>accurate analogy would be if the nameserver code gave
>>>you options so which root server cluster you wanted to
>>>use. The USG controlled one, or the other ones with
>>>all the names working.
>>
>>Perhaps I'm missing your point, but the nameserver code *does* give you
>>options for which root server cluster you want to use. You need only
>>configure it to point to the root server cluster you are interested in
>>using.
>
>
>With a radio you get instructions "turn the dial" on how to reive
>other signale.
>
>Show me the instructions that come with BIND that tell you how to
>point to different root clusters. People close to Paul have
>asked him to do this. The answer is always no.
It must be possible, as in other countries, we ask our local root
server, rather than tie up expensive international bandwidth
asking some other country -- try root.ca, root.uk, etc. or
similar if you don't like the standard config -- there may even
be a root.us out there somewhere!
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
--
Brian_...@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
use address above to reply
Jay Maynard
>What's your beef with Ronda? She has done a great job documenting the
>history and evolution of both Usenet and the Internet,
For sufficiently small values of "great". Her radical leftist worldview has
colored her thinking to the point that her conclusions are absurd, and many
others have commented on her gross inaccuracies and adamant refusal to
listen to the people who were there.
> and her concerns
>about privitization of the domain naming system should be carefully
>considered.
Standard leftist claptrap. Ronda would have the world micromanaged by
governments. Governments ahve the Midas Muffler touch: everything they touch
turns into a muffler. I trust governmentsabout as far as I can throw the
Capitol building.
Eric A. Hall
> You simply do not comprehend what is happening.
Oh I comprehend the situation just fine. Twinks with tin-foil hats have
managed to sweet talk "Internet time" from some trusting fool, and are
using it to post their non-linear thoughts into a completely irrelevant
thread. I just wish I'd spotted it earlier; I try not to participate in
these things.
Thread ignored. Good day.
Jay Maynard
>How nice to hear from you Jay. Be nice now, It's not like I'm
>lobbying for sci.domains.
Yet. I wouldn't put it past you.
> So what do you think of ICANN, Jay ?
I think they're trying to do an impossible job, caught between forces that
would grind anything into microscopic dust. Trademarks are such a central
feature of the business climate that they *will* be protected at all costs,
no matter how much anyone wishes otherwise. They're underfunded, overworked,
with little actual power - if they had power, NSI wouldn't have been able to
roadblock things as thoroughly or as long as they have - and are facing a
coice of either going along with things that folks find distasteful or being
completely swept aside.
As for your proposal afor unlimited TLD creation, I can only comment that it
fits in perfectly with your long-standing, well-documented, and demonstrated
utter contempt for any sort of namespace management. You completely ignore
the fact that a managed namespace greatly increases usability. You're
directly responsible for much of the chaos in Usenet group naming, and I
shudder to think what would happen if that sort of chaos were to pervade the
DNS.
Greg Skinner
Jay Maynard <jmay...@texas.net> wrote:
>I think [ICANN is] trying to do an impossible job, caught between forces that
>would grind anything into microscopic dust. Trademarks are such a central
>feature of the business climate that they *will* be protected at all costs,
>no matter how much anyone wishes otherwise. They're underfunded, overworked,
>with little actual power - if they had power, NSI wouldn't have been able to
>roadblock things as thoroughly or as long as they have - and are facing a
>coice of either going along with things that folks find distasteful or being
>completely swept aside.
Indeed, the true power lies with the NTIA and its ability to assert
control of the IANA root zone configuration. That situation will continue
to exist until either:
* a US Supreme Court or some other high-level decision transfers that
power elsewhere, or
* "netizens" take their DNS service from some other root cluster
>As for your proposal afor unlimited TLD creation, I can only comment that it
>fits in perfectly with your long-standing, well-documented, and demonstrated
>utter contempt for any sort of namespace management. You completely ignore
>the fact that a managed namespace greatly increases usability. You're
>directly responsible for much of the chaos in Usenet group naming, and I
>shudder to think what would happen if that sort of chaos were to pervade the
>DNS.
There you go, Richard; this is the type of unease and concern you need
to address, if you want the ORSC root to be the one that the masses
use.
--gregbo
gds at best.com
Greg Skinner
>charge for domains.
The NSF-NSI contract gave NSF permission to authorize NSI to charge
for registrations. That's what NSI did and that's what I'm talking
about.
>I din't understand your point; my point is that from 94
>on it's been obvious that the com zone is too flat and
>a market failure exists for top level names thatgave NSI
>a de facto monopoly. The solution was clear from 94 on:
>create new tlds registries. Go back and look at the
>original NSF contracts, especialy the part that says
>"and create other Internics" and "become self funding".
While this may be true, it does not follow that new TLD registries
*will* provide competition to the NSI de facto monopoly. Again, I
give TLDs like .to as an example.
Bill Gates complains that other OSes, browsers, etc. exist and
therefore MS is not a monopoly. Yet the US Justice Department seems
to think otherwise. It's conceivable (imho) that NSI might very well
continue to get the lion's share of registrations, even if millions of
new TLDs were to appear, because "dot com" has been popularized.
>That will pass. It just takes time and dollare to educate
>poeple. .COM will seem like an antique in a few years.
Well, it's been five years since NSI started charging, and I don't see
the masses running to register in ccTLDs ...
--gregbo
gds at best.com
Richard J. Sexton
Jay Maynard <jmay...@texas.net> wrote:
>Standard leftist claptrap. Ronda would have the world micromanaged by
>governments. Governments ahve the Midas Muffler touch: everything they touch
>turns into a muffler. I trust governmentsabout as far as I can throw the
>Capitol building.
Sexton agrees with Maynard. Hell must be frozen over. Mpegs at 11.
Richard J. Sexton
Jay Maynard <jmay...@texas.net> wrote:
>On 10 Mar 2000 15:05:37 -0500, Richard J. Sexton <ric...@ns1.vrx.net> wrote:
>>How nice to hear from you Jay. Be nice now, It's not like I'm
>>lobbying for sci.domains.
>
>Yet. I wouldn't put it past you.
>
>> So what do you think of ICANN, Jay ?
>
>would grind anything into microscopic dust. Trademarks are such a central
>feature of the business climate that they *will* be protected at all costs,
>no matter how much anyone wishes otherwise. They're underfunded, overworked,
>with little actual power - if they had power, NSI wouldn't have been able to
>roadblock things as thoroughly or as long as they have - and are facing a
>coice of either going along with things that folks find distasteful or being
>completely swept aside.
Wow.
Where do I begin? First off Jay, if you don't like government inteference
I cannot see how you want any part of ICANN in it's present form.
The the USG sent Magaziner around telling poeple 'you must self organizer
to create an institutionalized framework to replace IANA' he
was, at the same time running around in background with Rocger
Cochetti from IBM hand picking a baord that other governments
found to be acceptible. The EU especially, whined about the
green paper and the major disconnect between it and the white
paper is a result of this influence.
If ICANN doesn't make you nervous, the Government Advisory Committe (GAC)
should. It circumvents what little due process governments have and
between it and WIPO will cause more degradation of domain name holders
rights over the next short while than anything.
As to the notion that NSI had prevented the creation of new domain
names, their public stance is they're for them,and I ask
you how would *you* know anything about it? My personal opinion
as a result of being associated briefly with NSI as a contract
programmer and being involved wth new domais for 5 yeaers is
that they have done more to encourage their deployment than
anybody except for perhape the "old" pre-ISOC influenced IANA.
Or did the clause in the last contract between DoC and NSI
that says "NSI will never run an alternative root server"
go unnoticed by you ?
>As for your proposal afor unlimited TLD creation, I can only comment that it
>fits in perfectly with your long-standing, well-documented, and demonstrated
>utter contempt for any sort of namespace management. You completely ignore
>the fact that a managed namespace greatly increases usability. You're
>directly responsible for much of the chaos in Usenet group naming, and I
>shudder to think what would happen if that sort of chaos were to pervade the
>DNS.
Nothing makes me happier than to learn you're an ICANN supporter, Jay.
Richard J. Sexton
>control of the IANA root zone configuration. That situation will continue
>to exist until either:
>
>* a US Supreme Court or some other high-level decision transfers that
> power elsewhere, or
>* "netizens" take their DNS service from some other root cluster
That's about right althought there are other scenarios.
>>As for your proposal afor unlimited TLD creation, I can only comment that it
>>fits in perfectly with your long-standing, well-documented, and demonstrated
>>utter contempt for any sort of namespace management. You completely ignore
>>the fact that a managed namespace greatly increases usability. You're
>>directly responsible for much of the chaos in Usenet group naming, and I
>>shudder to think what would happen if that sort of chaos were to pervade the
>>DNS.
>
>There you go, Richard; this is the type of unease and concern you need
>to address, if you want the ORSC root to be the one that the masses
>use.
Hahah. Jay and I have been screaming at each other for nearly 20
years and each think the other is an utter lunatic. I suspect
though, once the rhetoric is looked past, Jay and I both
want the same things consensual internet communty coordination
of DNS names, free of government intervention. Sound about right, Jay ?
Richard J. Sexton
Greg Skinner <g...@nospam.best.com> wrote:
>In article <8adpcg$o3n$1...@ns1.vrx.net>,
>>charge for domains.
>
>The NSF-NSI contract gave NSF permission to authorize NSI to charge
>for registrations. That's what NSI did and that's what I'm talking
>about.
It's a subtle but important distinction. People think NSI
wanted to charge for names and that's not true. They
were *told* to bill for names and they were *told* how
much. Just as now, they are *told* how much they will
charge for domain names. NSI has never set it's own
prices.
>While this may be true, it does not follow that new TLD registries
>*will* provide competition to the NSI de facto monopoly. Again, I
>give TLDs like .to as an example.
Fine. If we try and fail, that's ok. If we do not try, shame on us.
>Bill Gates complains that other OSes, browsers, etc. exist and
>therefore MS is not a monopoly. Yet the US Justice Department seems
>to think otherwise. It's conceivable (imho) that NSI might very well
>continue to get the lion's share of registrations, even if millions of
>new TLDs were to appear, because "dot com" has been popularized.
Um, "all the good names are gone". The Internet traditionally
does not fix a problem of scarce resources by regulation, if
fixes it by creating new resoures.
>>That will pass. It just takes time and dollare to educate
>>poeple. .COM will seem like an antique in a few years.
>
>Well, it's been five years since NSI started charging, and I don't see
>the masses running to register in ccTLDs ...
Some of the cctlds have experienced geat rates of growth than .com;
in general they lag several years behind the momentum .com
enjoys and for good reason: many cctlds had stupid nameing
structures and wer slow as molassas to respond to requests.
COM, OTOH would give you any name you want, and pretty damn
quickly.
Besides, the two letter domains suck; people in general don't
want them. Even Amblers .WEB registry, despite the fact it
does not resolve globaly, has more paud registrations than
most of the cctlds. If there were 100 half decent new
tlds in which people could register I would expect it to make
a dent in NSI's market share of domain names. Maybe I'm
wrong but there's only one way to find out, isnt there?
Ron Newman
> >>What's your beef with Ronda?
> >
> >I can't speak for him, but mine is that she's a kook.
>
> She's a very dangerous kook, IMO.
> >>She has done a great job documenting the
> >>history and evolution of both Usenet and the Internet,
> >
> >Through *VERY* aggressive filters to report the "good" history.
>
> She isn't reporting anything. She seems to be making it up
> as she goes along and absolutely refuses to listen to those
> who have been trying to correct her mistakes.
Can you either give examples, or point me at a Deja.com thread
if this has already been discussed? Thanks.
[Followups cut back]
Jay Maynard
>Where do I begin? First off Jay, if you don't like government inteference
>I cannot see how you want any part of ICANN in it's present form.
I view ICANN as a necessary evil, much like governments themselves. There
*will* be some sort of body to do that function, and it *will* be controlled
by folks you don't like. The current structure of ICANN is about the best
we'll get. This is the real world, Richard, and we will never be rid of
governments nor their influence. That neither you nor I like it has any
bearing on the fact.
We will du business with ICANN for the same reasons we do business with the
law of gravity: it's totally unavoidable.
>As to the notion that NSI had prevented the creation of new domain
>names, their public stance is they're for them,and I ask
>you how would *you* know anything about it?
I was not referring to NSI's roadblocks with reference to domain names -
something that I indeed have no knowledge of - but rather their
intranisgence and total unwillingness to follow their mandated course of
action in allowing any other domain registrars.
>Nothing makes me happier than to learn you're an ICANN supporter, Jay.
Even as lukewarm as I am about it?
Jay Maynard
>Hahah. Jay and I have been screaming at each other for nearly 20
>years and each think the other is an utter lunatic.
When did you propose rec.f*cking, anyway?
I've only been on the net since 1987, IIRC...
> I suspect
>though, once the rhetoric is looked past, Jay and I both
>want the same things consensual internet communty coordination
>of DNS names, free of government intervention. Sound about right, Jay ?
More or less, though I think we would differ dramatically on the meaning of
the phrase "Internet community coordination".
Whether I want that or not is irrelevant, however; I don't believe it'll
ever happen. Trademark law and rights are far too pervasive, and government
control of telecommunication too entrenched, to allow them to get out of
managing the net.
n...@real.address
> Sexton agrees with Maynard. Hell must be frozen over. Mpegs at 11.
Hee hee. From that album:
Who will provide the grand design
of what is yours and what is mine?
There is no more new frontier.
We have got to make it here.
The simple elegant solution is a new .reg TLD, and I'm not the first
to say that.
Any town of any size or any age has an area that used to be the
business district and is now inhabited by the fringe. Let the same
happen to dot com. If only the registered trademark owners can
register *.reg that cuts thru the crap in a second. Businesses have
enough money to pay lawyers to map out their space, let them put the
money towards registering mybusiness.reg. And if they already own
mybusiness.com they can provide a clickthru. No harm, no foul. Well,
except the billboard painters will have to get paid for going down 101
and pasting .reg over .com and people watching the last coupla
Superbowls on tape will be disenfranchised, And don't tell me about
duplicate trademarks, there's mechanisms for that in the real world,
and companies can worry about the mechanics of it online. Hint:
there is such a thing as subdomains,
Take a look at:
http://www.einfoworld.com/domains.html
The owner of eamazon.com is being sued by amazon.com, take that to
its (il)logical conclusion. Do we really want some corp suing for
xyz.com because it might be mistaken for abc.com? Or netsol or ICANN
making that determination? Somewhere between the cybersquat weenies
and the multinat corps legal weasels are the vast majority of the rest
of us who fully understand that if you send mail to m...@mail.com it may
not show up in the inbox of m...@email.com. If you don't understand that
go and get a copy of Spelling for (corporate) Dummies. Let the corps
have a .reg space to sell overpriced CD's and leave the rest of us the
hell alone.
Call some place paradise, kiss it goodbye.
Richard J. Sexton
>Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>> Sexton agrees with Maynard. Hell must be frozen over. Mpegs at 11.
>
>Hee hee. From that album:
>
>Who will provide the grand design
>of what is yours and what is mine?
>There is no more new frontier.
>We have got to make it here.
>
>The simple elegant solution is a new .reg TLD, and I'm not the first
>to say that.
The idea has been bounced around for years and is going nowhere fast.
Ms. Info
wrote:
>>The simple elegant solution is a new .reg TLD, and I'm not the first
>>to say that.
>
>The idea has been bounced around for years and is going nowhere fast.
For years it had nowhere to go. Now with ICANN asking for submissions
about new TLD's it could be bounced off them often enough that they
would have to take it into consideration.
Richard J. Sexton
Syre, the only problem is trademark owners don't want it. They
want exclusive rights to their name in all top level domains
which is more than they are entitled to under the law.
Then you the delta problem: faucets or airline? They both
have a trademark for "delta". You could suggest delta-airliens.reg
and delta-faucets.reg but I doubt either one would want that;
somebody is going to end up with delta.reg one way or the other.
Domain names are unique. Trademarks are not. You cannot map
one to the other.
Greg Skinner
>wanted to charge for names and that's not true. They
>were *told* to bill for names and they were *told* how
>much. Just as now, they are *told* how much they will
>charge for domain names. NSI has never set it's own
>prices.
Whatever, Richard. NSI started charging, which (among other things)
led us to place we are now.
>Um, "all the good names are gone". The Internet traditionally
>does not fix a problem of scarce resources by regulation, if
>fixes it by creating new resoures.
Regulation might have nothing to do with it. It might just be that
people want to register in .com (and hold on to what they already
have), because "dot com" now sounds so attractive.
There are lots of "good names" in .us and .ca, too. :)
>Besides, the two letter domains suck; people in general don't
>want them. Even Amblers .WEB registry, despite the fact it
>does not resolve globaly, has more paud registrations than
>most of the cctlds. If there were 100 half decent new
>tlds in which people could register I would expect it to make
>a dent in NSI's market share of domain names. Maybe I'm
>wrong but there's only one way to find out, isnt there?
Yes, and when you and your friends at ORSC manage to convince the
Internet community that your TLDs are the ones we should point to,
maybe we'll find out. Otherwise, whatever TLDs ICANN adds (if they
add any) will no doubt be accessible to all of their registrars
(including NSI), which won't change the status quo at all.
--gregbo
gds at best.com
Ms. Info
wrote:
>Syre, the only problem is trademark owners don't want it. They
>want exclusive rights to their name in all top level domains
>which is more than they are entitled to under the law.
Depends on which law and which country and etc. There's an
anti-cybersquat law but there isn't an anti-reverse domain name
hijacking law. Past court cases have been all over the map, with
no clear precedence emerging. In the case of einfoworld and
eamazon and many others the co.'s apparently want not only
their mark on each TLD but also on similar terms, witness etoy
and etoys. Look at the:
http://www.epix.com/
case which has gone on for years and at considerable expense.
There will probably be more of this, not less. Average net users
should not have to be put thru this. As we won't see an anti-rdnh
law any time soon, the alternative is to give co's a domain that
really is for co's, the average net user will not be put out.
>Then you the delta problem: faucets or airline? They both
>have a trademark for "delta". You could suggest delta-airliens.reg
>and delta-faucets.reg but I doubt either one would want that;
>somebody is going to end up with delta.reg one way or the other.
Subdomains: airlines.delta.reg faucets.delta.reg
Regardless of if or how that could be worked out it would at
least be worked out B2B instead of the present situation where
Archie comics goes after veronica.org.
>Domain names are unique. Trademarks are not. You cannot map
>one to the other.
Agreed, but that isn't stopping legislators and lawyers from
attempting to do so, with some success. If they're going to do
it anyway, give them a defined area in which to do it.
Richard J. Sexton
Ms. Info <n...@real.address> wrote:
>On 12 Mar 2000 11:40:52 -0500, ric...@ns1.vrx.net (Richard J. Sexton)
>wrote:
>
>>Syre, the only problem is trademark owners don't want it. They
>>want exclusive rights to their name in all top level domains
>>which is more than they are entitled to under the law.
>
>Depends on which law and which country and etc. There's an
Not as much as you'd like to think. There's multinational
agreements and they're fairly well harmonized.
>Agreed, but that isn't stopping legislators and lawyers from
>attempting to do so, with some success. If they're going to do
>it anyway, give them a defined area in which to do it.
Ok, go over to the Intellectual Property constituency of
ICANN and tell them you have the answer. See what happens.
Ron Newman
Sexton) wrote:
> Syre, the only problem is trademark owners don't want it. They
> want exclusive rights to their name in all top level domains
> which is more than they are entitled to under the law.
A problem that could and should have been avoided if the InterNIC
had enacted and enforced a rule saying:
"No company or organization can own more than one foo.tld" .
In other words, if a company in Redmond WA owns microsoft.com , then
microsoft.org and microsoft.net would be available to someone else.
Richard J. Sexton
Ron Newman <rne...@thecia.net> wrote:
>In article <8aghak$91$1...@ns1.vrx.net>, ric...@ns1.vrx.net (Richard J.
>Sexton) wrote:
>
>> Syre, the only problem is trademark owners don't want it. They
>> want exclusive rights to their name in all top level domains
>> which is more than they are entitled to under the law.
>
>A problem that could and should have been avoided if the InterNIC
>had enacted and enforced a rule saying:
>
>"No company or organization can own more than one foo.tld" .
They used to do that. It's unenforcable though for any resonable
amount of money; that is if you don't mind paying $1000 a domain
it could probably be done today.
Eric Fischer
> A problem that could and should have been avoided if the InterNIC
> had enacted and enforced a rule saying:
>
> "No company or organization can own more than one foo.tld" .
>
> In other words, if a company in Redmond WA owns microsoft.com , then
> microsoft.org and microsoft.net would be available to someone else.
That's the best idea I've heard in a long time. Unfortunately
it wouldn't be hard for them to work around for it by unofficial
delegation: Bill Gates could register microsoft.org, Steve Ballmer
could register microsoft.net, and so on.
eric
Greg Skinner
Ron Newman <rne...@thecia.net> wrote:
>A problem that could and should have been avoided if the InterNIC
>had enacted and enforced a rule saying:
>"No company or organization can own more than one foo.tld" .
Depending on how you define company or organization, there are still
ways to get around this that would lead to "popular name" exhaustion,
e.g. att.com and att.net. att.com was registered in 1986 and had been
in use for some time before that; att.net was registered in 1993. The
argument can be made that att.com and att.net are separate companies,
although they share a common brand.
--gregbo
gds at best.com
Ben Clifford
>>The simple elegant solution is a new .reg TLD, and I'm not the first
>>to say that.
>
>The idea has been bounced around for years and is going nowhere fast.
A similar idea has been created in the uk.
Traditionally the was .co.uk which was the uk equivalent of .com.
Now have been created .ltd.uk and .plc.uk.
Anyone wishing to register either must prove that they are
(respectively) Limited or Public Limited Companies in the UK, and the
name they can register is limited (oops pun) to that which they have
registered with Companies House, the UK government register of companies.
Hasn't really taken off [yet], though...
At around the same time, a load of other .uk domains were created,
.police.uk, .sch.uk [schools] (with schools initially given some
form of discount to encourage them to register), and so on and so forth.
These are all maintained by Nominet, a "not-for-profit" organisation
that sells registrations to its members for GBP 5 for 2 years, who
then sell them onto the great unwashed at great markup.
Alan J Rosenthal
>in other countries, we ask our local root
>server, rather than tie up expensive international bandwidth
>asking some other country -- try root.ca, root.uk, etc. or
Are you just making this up, or are you referring to something actual?
Almost everyone in the whole world uses the standard root hints file,
listing the root zone server IP addresses: 198.41.0.4 128.9.0.107 192.33.4.12
128.8.10.90 192.203.230.10 192.5.5.241 192.112.36.4 128.63.2.53 192.36.148.17
198.41.0.10 193.0.14.129 198.32.64.12 202.12.27.33
Your root hints file lists these (might be missing the last few), whatever
it's called. And there is no host "root.ca" or "root.uk" if that's what
you're trying to say.
When your name server starts up, it contacts one of these and gets the current
list of traditional root zone servers, which it uses thenceforth.
There are no traditional root zone servers in Canada, if I'm not mistaken.
There are some scattered in a few other places in the world outside the USA.
Ms. Info
wrote:
>>On 12 Mar 2000 11:40:52 -0500, ric...@ns1.vrx.net (Richard J. Sexton)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Syre, the only problem is trademark owners don't want it. They
>>>want exclusive rights to their name in all top level domains
>>>which is more than they are entitled to under the law.
>>
>>Depends on which law and which country and etc. There's an
>
>Not as much as you'd like to think. There's multinational
>agreements and they're fairly well harmonized.
To clarify. For a global company to protect its brand, it would have
to obtain companyname.co.uk, (and now companyname.ltd.uk etc.) ad
nauseum. Many global trademarks are already in use by other than
the trademark holders in such situations. Do these companies, even
the pure dotcom plays determined to increase their red ink every year,
go to all these countries and attempt to register and/or sue? If they
do, they could either win or lose depending on jurisdiction/judge/
jury/TM registered in that country/TM law of that country (which isn't
harmonized and may well never will be, US TM court rulings alone on
domain name cases have been all over the map to date). Yahoo.com lost
a Mexican court case for yahoo.com.mx in one international example
that could be played out again and again.
If the corps don't sue then they aren't agressively protecting their
mark, which can be used as a defence against them if they try to
litigate in future. The current situation is a roll of the dice
whether they sue or not, hardly the kind of predictable landscape
that corps appreciate, how is this situation advantageous to them?
Or do they go to whomever is responsible for that ccTLD registry and
complain? The registration of domains throughout ccTLD's is anything
but harmonized. Not all countries are democracies, some are rogue
states, some have hardly any rule of law, how can that be seen as
harmonious? And situations can change. Witness the .pn case where
every adult citizen (other than the current controller of the domain
and his immediate family) demanded that it be reassigned. Sure WIPO
is ruling on domain disputes, that's fine when there's a clear TM
violation, but there's very many in a grey area that can't be decided
fairly based on the current system, no matter what the ruling is.
The corps don't want or need the hassles. They want to beam into every
abode on the planet but they probably don't want to hire/send lawyers
there to sue and/or pay bakshi. Even getting their .net and .org
equivalents (which you say above is what they want) isn't an easy
process (nor should it be). The current situation makes it almost
impossible to adequately protect their marks. And that is just with
text-identical domains, never mind the hundreds of *amazon and
amazon*.com's now extant, which they conceivably also have to sue
so as not to allow dilution. Again, where is the advantage to the
corps in this picture (the CEO of mp3.com notwithstanding)?
Where is the evidence that companies don't want a .reg domain?
The .gov and .mil and .edu domains have remained reasonably free
of drek (at least that which .com is prone to). A .reg (or whatever)
domain with a gatekeeper would do the same. Sure it's another level
of bureacracy and that's rarely a solution, but at least it's only the
corps having to deal with it, and having one policy in place for .reg
instead of what now obtains would probably greatly lessen their
workload.
Corps would benefit from this idea, whether they're a Yahoo,
which has a .com name, or an XYZ corp. which was too late to
register xyz.com. In the first example Yahoo.com keeps its .com
name and maps/mirrors/links/redirects to .reg, In the latter
example, XYZ makes its case with whomever registers .reg and takes
their chances, but they do get another chance. Yahoo loses nothing
and eventually gets increased brand protection. A gTDL of .reg
tells the world they are whom they say they are and *all* the
rest are poseurs. Eventually the yahoo.com domain is as relevant
as y2k.com, an artifact of the net, version 1. Existing .coms
(with associated TMs) want to be grandfathered to new domains
anyway. This allows for that. They'll probably be happy to get
away from the .comfusion.
Your previous point that there may be overlapping xyz corps and/or
TMs is no reason not to have a .reg domain, that situation already
exists. .reg would improve on the current situation. Either the
existing owner of xyz.com can prove the exclusive right to xyz.reg
or they can't. If the policy still leads to duplicates then go to
sub-domains or a flip of the coin or even a Solomon's choice.
As long as the policy is there in advance every TM corp has a level
playing field and it's a game that doesn't inconvenience others
who never wanted to play it in the first place. .com wasn't
policed with regard to TM law (except in the real or imagined breach)
and now we have the corps and the cybersquats making it difficult
for the majority in between.
Simply creating a new open domain like .biz (for example) without
some sort of regulation will only increase the confusion (for consumer
and corp) and start another (fools)gold rush. Create a new domain like
.reg or .biz or .inc (or pay off the Turkmenistanians) but police it
from the beginning. Put the policy makers and lawyers and bureaucrats
and, if necessary, courts, at the gateway to that domain, not in the
middle of a global and (sometimes still) non-commercial net, and the
majority of corps and users (read potential consumers) will be the
better for it.
>Ok, go over to the Intellectual Property constituency of
>ICANN and tell them you have the answer. See what happens.
It's an answer, not the answer, but OK, when I get more cogent.
Alan J Rosenthal
>A gTLD of .reg
>tells the world they are whom they say they are and *all* the
>rest are poseurs.
Therefore, a gTLD of .reg does not exist.
Seriously, the problem is more fundamental than this "patch" can address.
There can only be one of a given exact domain name. There can be multiple
entities with the same trademark name. Anything which claims to tell the
world that "all the rest are poseurs" is lying, because even if this is
true at the moment you can't say it will stay that way.
Yahoo probably has trademark protection at the federal level in the USA
and perhaps some other countries, but if in the famed Lower Slobovia there
is a company with a registered trademark of "Yahoo" which specializes in
supplying village idiots to village idiot conventions and VBC boards of
directors, and if they register for the new yahoo.reg domain first, then
Yahoo.com, Inc. is SOL.
>Your previous point that there may be overlapping xyz corps and/or
>TMs is no reason not to have a .reg domain, that situation already
>exists. .reg would improve on the current situation. Either the
>existing owner of xyz.com can prove the exclusive right to xyz.reg
>or they can't.
They can't. There is no such thing as an exclusive world-wide trademark.
Or even an exclusive trademark within the USA. That village-idiot supplier
may well be able to use the Yahoo name as a trademark even in the USA, unless
Yahoo.com, Inc. can successfully argue that there is a substantial chance of
consumer confusion between a village idiot and a web page. (Hmm...)
>Simply creating a new open domain like .biz (for example) without
>some sort of regulation will only increase the confusion (for consumer
>and corp) and start another (fools)gold rush.
I agree, but I don't think that the problem is that it is under-policed as
you say. I think the problem is that people want global rights to names and
are expecting them from domains. I think that the solution to this problem
is to make it clear that global rights to names cannot be achieved with
domains, rather than to set up something which tries to make something true
which can never be true. In this my views have something in common with the
assertion in section 3.5 of the sendmail faq that fuzzy matching for e-mail
addresses is bad. Make them names, like identifiers in a computer program.
Good names are good, but only one organization can have THE best domain name,
whatever it turns out to be. A system which tries to assert rights over
domain names matching existing trademarks is doomed to failure, because
multiple people get set up with a claim on a given name this way.
Richard J. Sexton
Greg Skinner <g...@nospam.best.com> wrote:
>In article <8alv06$5g6$1...@ns1.vrx.net>,>>If you want to point to another .com be my guest. Noting is
>>stopping you other than it's silly.
>
>OK, applied to .web, which one is "right" and which one is "silly"?
Well, IODesigns .web:
o Was the first operational .web regiostry ('96)
o Was told by Jon Postel to go live/advertise/charge
o Has worked evry day since 1986
o Has tens of thousands of paid registrations
There's two others I'm aware of:
1) Name.Space. Their system allowed you to type in sld.tld
and it created the name in their DNS. Somebody once typed in
someting.web thus it showed up in theit root zone along with their
other 900 tds. I called them and explained this was a collision
so they took it out. A year later it was back in, I called
again, they took it out. A year later somebody ran around
checking all tld zone operators and asked name.space who the
administrator for their .web was and reluctant to admit to
owning 900 tlds they gave some name of some guy who had
registred the first .web tld in their system. When called
he had no idea what that was all about and thought
he was just making a suggestion in a big domain name suggestion
box and wanted no part of running a .web registry and didn't
know about IOD and whe told about them thought they should be
running it as they semed to be doing it properly and he said he
was just fooling around. I have all this email.
2) CORE - as part of the ill fated IAHC effot they cookedup 7
new tlds and insteasd of picking .WWW they picked .WEB. Dave
Crocker later admitted on some mailing list somewhere that they
did this to force a lawsuit which they presumed they would
win, touse the precident agisnt NSI to steal .com away from
them.
About a year ago Einar Stefferud was paid by both CORE and IOD
to reslve the issue. Both parties asseted they were dealing
in good faith, but CORE was actually in the process of applying
for a trademark on .web which was enough of a demonstration
of bad faith that the negotiaitons broke down. I believe
IOD is suing CORE now for various acts of tomfoolery and I await
the outcome. Every now and then I peek at core's .web zone;
someties it has data in it sometimes it doesn't. There is no
whois, so, all these factors taken into consideration I don't
regard the CORE .WEB tld as serious. A similar situation exists
with their .arts, but the other 5 tlds that claim appear to
be clean.
Does this seem reasonable ?
Greg Skinner
>Does this seem reasonable ?
It suggests that there are two, perhaps three organizations who have a
"claim" to .web, to the extent that it is claimable.
The point isn't what I think is reasonable, it's the decisions that
people make when they set up their computers. If ICANN decides to go
along with CORE's .web, and the NTIA backs it, and IOD loses the
lawsuit, CORE's .web is what people will see who use computers that
take DNS from the legacy root servers. Others will see whatever .web
is served from the root servers they choose.
--gregbo
gds at best.com
Ms. Info
wrote:
>if they register for the new yahoo.reg domain first, then
>Yahoo.com, Inc. is SOL.
Whomever the registrars are for .reg would presumably have a global
perspective on a gTDL. It would be up to them to make a determination
as to who should get that domain. If Yahoo.com is sufficiently unclued
as to let some village idiots register it, too bad. I'm not saying
first come, first served. There's services out there now like
nameguard to track duplicate or near duplicate registrations.
Let whomever may have an interest in yahoo.reg apply to register it,
let anyone else who may have an interest in it or confusingly similar
terms be notified of this (if they can't sub to such and don't have
a valid email address they probably don't deserve a .reg). Give them
a week to put in an alternative claim (and have a process in place
to filter spurious ones by tapping into TM databases). Then let
some body (makeup and membership decided and funded by current
TM owners and truly interested parties perhaps) make a judgement
based on its merits and a global policy.
If in fact competing yahoos seem to have an exactly equal right to
the name (the PTO seems to manage without this occurring a lot),
flip a coin or a randomizer, or put it up for bids only to those
parties (realnames and some search engines already do similar),
or do a Solomon and retire yahoo.reg as being too confusing and
require them to try search-yahoo.reg or idiotyahoo.reg or some
permutation using subdomains. Or the loser gets sent down/back to
the minors (because they couldn't show the same global reach,
which could be quantified in some fashion) where they reside
at yahoo.reg.sj (assuming that sj is Slobovia), still with more
protection for their mark than they have at present. Or give
the loser an opportunity at a second choice like yahoovi.reg
(which doesn't infringe *any* different TM, making it a
potentially much stronger brand in future) which they can
then market as 'new and improved'. .com is tired anyway,
they just named a cloned pig dotcom. Didn't dejanews
become deja without massive confusion (well, you know what
I mean)?
Sure, some of this sounds wonky but the current situation where you
have national and even state courts ruling on global domains (and not
with any consistent pattern or defining precedent) is far wonkier
still. Is it better to eat up court time and costs working all this
out (assuming they eventually and probably only by accident
could stumble on a better solution) or to require the corps who
have a vested interest in it to bear more of the burden? Even if
ICANN is a closed shop, having to ask for intervenor status in
courts (perhaps eventually around the world) to have your say about
what you think the net should look like seems far more difficult.
>They can't. There is no such thing as an exclusive world-wide trademark.
There is such a concept as a globally recognized trademark. That has
come up repeatedly in court cases regarding .com domains and will only
increase, regardless of which, if any, new domains are created. .reg
helps to address duplicate global trademarks better than the current
.com which not only has competing marks but legacy non-commercial
and presumably bona fide owners, competing squatters, *yahoo*.coms,
etc. all muddying the mix. .reg removes all but competing marks from
the picture, that is a far better situation for corps, and because
it lessens the possibility of squatting, spoofing, fakery, etc.
it makes it better for most everyone else. Simply adding another
open domain like .biz (or worse, a number of them) does neither,
and in all probability will exacerbate the situation.
>Or even an exclusive trademark within the USA. That village-idiot supplier
>may well be able to use the Yahoo name as a trademark even in the USA, unless
>Yahoo.com, Inc. can successfully argue that there is a substantial chance of
>consumer confusion between a village idiot and a web page. (Hmm...)
Heh. Unfortunately the concept of consumer confusion seems to be
becoming lost in US domain court rulings. Domains have been taken
away even though there is no evidence of present or potential consumer
confusion, my point being that the net and precedent are both changing
anyway. Better to be proactive and deal with this in some
semi-logical/functional fashion at the domain level than to wait
for courts, TM laws, governments et al, to change it, probably
into something less functional than at present.
>I think that the solution to this problem
>is to make it clear that global rights to names cannot be achieved with
>domains, rather than to set up something which tries to make something true
>which can never be true.
Successive approximations toward that goal is better than the current
situation. There is little chance of making corps see that they
shouldn't do something that they will try to do anyway. For every
case like the aforementioned:
http://www.einfoworld.com
and
http://www.ajax.org
and
http://www.etoy.com
where random acts of sanity occur (usually after pressure is applied)
there are far more cases of commercial entities attempting to remake
the net in their own image and no sign and little hope that that will
change for the better any time soon. Put a fence up around .reg
and tell them to work it out amongst themselves.
>A system which tries to assert rights over
>domain names matching existing trademarks is doomed to failure, because
>multiple people get set up with a claim on a given name this way.
As I say, that is already the case. Having a mechanism in place to
deal with these claims takes it out of the hands of the courts and
lawyers, at least insofar as those with or wanting and deserving of
a .com (and not a .reg) address is concerned, which is most of us.
It is likely that ICANN will create new TLD's anyway, which is no
less a patch. In the final analysis is it better to repeat .com or
learn from what happened and attempt to improve on it? Call me a
global village idiot (TM pending), but I'd go for the latter.
Richard J. Sexton
Alternative roots mirror the legacy roit and add domains. If
ICANN picks CORES .web, as much as it pains me I'll dump IOD"s
.web and point to CORES .web.
We don't break things.
david parsons
Richard J. Sexton <ric...@ns1.vrx.net> wrote:
>Alternative roots mirror the legacy roit and add domains. If
>ICANN picks CORES .web, as much as it pains me I'll dump IOD"s
>.web and point to CORES .web.
That, regrettably, is a really really good reason to NOT use the
alternative roots; if ICANN can override an extended top-level
domain and have all the alternate roots roll over to the ICANN-
blessed one, whats the point of even resolving the domains in the
first place?
____
david parsons \bi/ oops.
\/
Richard J. Sexton
Not a bad point, David. You have to weigh notioms of whats good
and fair. If most of the worls sees nic.web as one place
and a small group sees it as something else, that may bethe
right thing to do but I'm not sure it's practical.
In the end, the market will decide. Anybody is free to point
to the "correct" .web and if more poeple use that than the
ICANN one, great.
Greg Skinner
Richard J. Sexton <ric...@ns1.vrx.net> wrote:
>Alternative roots mirror the legacy roit and add domains. If
>ICANN picks CORES .web, as much as it pains me I'll dump IOD"s
>.web and point to CORES .web.
>We don't break things.
Are you speaking for all alternative root operators, past, present,
and future?
Greg Skinner
Richard J. Sexton <ric...@ns1.vrx.net> wrote:
>Alternative roots mirror the legacy roit and add domains. If
>ICANN picks CORES .web, as much as it pains me I'll dump IOD"s
>.web and point to CORES .web.
>We don't break things.
Things will be broken from the perspective of people who were using
something.web expecting the records from IOD's registrants to return,
and instead would be getting CORE's registrants' records.
--gregbo
gds at best.com
Richard J. Sexton
Greg Skinner <g...@nospam.best.com> wrote:
>In article <8ampc3$kq0$1...@ns1.vrx.net>,
>Richard J. Sexton <ric...@ns1.vrx.net> wrote:
>>Alternative roots mirror the legacy roit and add domains. If
>>ICANN picks CORES .web, as much as it pains me I'll dump IOD"s
>>.web and point to CORES .web.
>
>>We don't break things.
>
>and future?
Obviously not. How could I?
I'm speaking for yself and the poeple I associate with.
Richard J. Sexton
Greg Skinner <g...@nospam.best.com> wrote:
>In article <8ampc3$kq0$1...@ns1.vrx.net>,
>Richard J. Sexton <ric...@ns1.vrx.net> wrote:
>>Alternative roots mirror the legacy roit and add domains. If
>>ICANN picks CORES .web, as much as it pains me I'll dump IOD"s
>>.web and point to CORES .web.
>
>>We don't break things.
>
>something.web expecting the records from IOD's registrants to return,
>and instead would be getting CORE's registrants' records.
>
>--gregbo
>gds at best.com
Why don't you and Raul Dhesi thrash this out.
My personal opinion is a contested TLD does enter my root zone.
IOD's .web was non contested when I entered it. For future tlds
any two that are in dispute are told, per RFC 1591 to settl
the dispute between themselves and neither will be entered until it
is settled.
There is a pending court case between IOD and CORE so I susept this will
all be moot very shortly.
Richard J. Sexton
Greg Skinner <g...@nospam.best.com> wrote:
>In article <8ap8hr$57t$1...@ns1.vrx.net>,
>Richard J. Sexton <ric...@ns1.vrx.net> wrote:
>>My personal opinion is a contested TLD does enter my root zone.
>>IOD's .web was non contested when I entered it. For future tlds
>>any two that are in dispute are told, per RFC 1591 to settl
>>the dispute between themselves and neither will be entered until it
>>is settled.
>
>lawsuit, the service you provided for resolving their .web will be
>broken. Your policy inspires less confidence (imho) than the policies
>that currently govern the legacy roots. This type of issue is what
>makes others in the Internet community justifiably concerned about
>alternative roots.
>
>--gregbo
>gds at best.com
Tell me what you want, Greg. Nothing I say seems to make you happy.
Greg Skinner
Mike Dimmick
news:8aph57$abp$1...@ns1.vrx.net...
> Tell me what you want, Greg. Nothing I say seems to make you happy.
That does generally happen when both posters' initial points of view
differ so widely *grin*.
My view is that the whole point of DNS is a single rooted hierarchy.
ALL name servers MUST query the AUTHORITATIVE servers for the root (for
non-cached queries, of course). The contents of the authoritative root
servers are maintained by NSI. But the servers themselves are owned and
operated by different organisations.
For example, F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. (class IN) is owned and operated by the
Internet Software Consortium. See
http://www.isc.org/services/public/F-root-server.html.
NSI is a commercial corporation. If you want to add a top-level domain,
I'm sure that you can, for a price. Assuming that this is allowed by
ICANN regulations. If not, you have to persuade ICANN.
I feel that the problem is not a lack of top-level domains. The problem
is people registering names in the wrong top-level domain. If a company
or organisation's market is limited to Pennsylvania, USA, they should be
in .pa.us. Likewise an organisation in the UK should be in .org.uk. Of
course some country codes don't follow a multiple-hierarchical system
(e.g. Canada, Germany, France) so you end up with lots of uni- or u-
prefixes (ualberta.ca., uni-erlangen.de.) for universities which escapes
the point: it's hierarchical with more generalisation at the end of the
name.
How is brook-green.org.uk. different from my postal address (Aston Brook
Green, Birmingham, UK)? It describes the name (brook-green) of an
organisation within the UK. The existing top-level domains cover all
the international name classes that we need. OK, personal domain
registrations aren't really covered, but does .web. really suggest this?
And if yours is a personal site anyway, just for personal reasons, is it
really so hard to say 'my site is hosted by xxx.com.' with the URL, for
example, www.dimmick.demon.co.uk. or www.aston.ac.uk/~dimmicmj/?
Anyhow, how does a *personal* web site *possibly* come under the
category of an internationally-significant name?
You have to tell people your address. You have to tell them your phone
number(s). OK, if you're a big corporation, then addressing snail mail
to, for example, Microsoft Corporation, Seattle, WA, USA, will get it
there, but this is also a hierarchical system. The ISO standard for
country codes could be considered the root of this hierarchy; each
individual printed copy of the standard can be considered the same as a
root server - it's a directory of all of the next-level names in the
system.
Equally, you have to tell people your internet addresses. Write them in
adverts, read them out in TV and radio advertisements, put them in
cinemas, whichever way you want to do it, you must tell people how to
get to you. Customers may try to guess but they rarely try more than
two or three possibilities. What we need to do is to get people to try
their own locality first (for example MS might decide to have a server
dedicated to their own state; microsoft.wa.us. would be the zone within
which servers would be placed), before trying the higher domains. We
also need GOOD directories, which list how to get from a text-string you
supply into the base site of the corporation you're looking for. Yahoo
doesn't cut it.
I'd like to see some proof of the assertion you have made that all the
root servers are within the continental United States. I of course have
no proof that they aren't, but you brought it up!
Now, of course, if you wanted to suggest a different root *for a class
other than IN* then you could do so. But don't expect web browsers to
work with your names.
DNS relies on co-operation and proper organisation of zones, and a
commitment by *all* zone administrators that they will support the open
basis of DNS and not attempt to break it (cf posts hereabouts of one ISP
redirecting the names of a competitor to their own sites, breaking their
own users DNS resolution).
--
Mike Dimmick
Jim Blair
> You simply do not comprehend what is happening. The light at the end of
> your tunnel is the train coming towards you, but you are so enamored with
> your own comprehension of the darkness that the light and sound do not
> intrude. ...
Hi,
Sorry, I missed the start of this. Just which 'train is coming towards
us'?? I have been warned of so many impending disasters that I get
confused. Is it the eco-disaster that will cause mass starvation that
Paul Ehrlich warned would get us by 1999?
Or the credit cards that will have us all in debt over our heads by the
1980's? Or the great stock market crash that is always just ahead, and
has been since 1950? Or the National Debt that will destroy the economy
any day now?
Is it the concentration of wealth that will have all of the assets of
the country owned by 20 families by 1990? Or the population explosion
that will cause a massive dieoff by 2000? Or the "limits to Growth"
Club of Rome report? The CFC's that will destroy the ozone layer? Or
global warming that will flood Florida and NYC? Or the End of Oil?
Just which coming train is going to get me first?
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
Alan Barclay
Mike Dimmick <mi...@dimmick.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>in .pa.us. Likewise an organisation in the UK should be in .org.uk. Of
>course some country codes don't follow a multiple-hierarchical system
>(e.g. Canada, Germany, France) so you end up with lots of uni- or u-
Canada has a variable hirarchy system. A Toronto, Ontario organization
would have their domain in toronto.on.ca, a province wide organization
would have their domain in .on.ca, and a country wide organization would
have their domain in .ca.
http://www.cdnnet.ca for all the details.
Richard J. Sexton
Alan Barclay <gor...@elaine.drink.com> wrote:
>In article <953319075.14888.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>Mike Dimmick <mi...@dimmick.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>course some country codes don't follow a multiple-hierarchical system
>>(e.g. Canada, Germany, France) so you end up with lots of uni- or u-
>
>would have their domain in toronto.on.ca, a province wide organization
>would have their domain in .on.ca, and a country wide organization would
>have their domain in .ca.
Which of course eevrybody abuses and claims to be nationwide
and gets theirname.ca.
People like choices; voluntary organizational structures
work but imposed ones do not.
Greg Skinner
>That does generally happen when both posters' initial points of view
>differ so widely *grin*.
Well, for the record, I am not necessarily opposed to what Richard is
trying to do. I think he should do whatever he feels is right.
However, I feel compelled to point out areas in what he does that
might cause other problems.
My general feeling is that these types of problems make the
alternative root movement unattractive except for a tiny fraction of
the Internet community. I don't see how it could possibly succeed, in
the sense that it becomes a trusted service (at least to the extent
that legacy root DNS is a trusted service) without addressing these
problems. I don't see why ICANN or any other organization concerned
with DNS stability would embrace this movement. At most, imho, it
demonstrates proof of concept.
>NSI is a commercial corporation. If you want to add a top-level domain,
>I'm sure that you can, for a price. Assuming that this is allowed by
>ICANN regulations. If not, you have to persuade ICANN.
ICANN hasn't decided on any new TLDs yet. It does not surprise me
that the decision has taken so long. They are justifiably concerned
about the types of problems I've discussed here, among others.
--gregbo
gds at best.com
Eric Edwards
>In article <9533311...@elaine.drink.com>,
>Alan Barclay <gor...@elaine.drink.com> wrote:
>>Mike Dimmick <mi...@dimmick.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>course some country codes don't follow a multiple-hierarchical system
>>>(e.g. Canada, Germany, France) so you end up with lots of uni- or u-
>>
>>would have their domain in toronto.on.ca, a province wide organization
>>would have their domain in .on.ca, and a country wide organization would
>>have their domain in .ca.
>
>Which of course eevrybody abuses and claims to be nationwide
>and gets theirname.ca.
>
>People like choices; voluntary organizational structures
>work but imposed ones do not.
Which voluntary structures work?
--
Real courtesy requires human effort and understanding.
Never let your machine or your habit send courtesy copies.
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>I feel that the problem is not a lack of top-level domains. The problem
>is people registering names in the wrong top-level domain. If a company
>or organisation's market is limited to Pennsylvania, USA, they should be
>in .pa.us. Likewise an organisation in the UK should be in .org.uk. Of
>course some country codes don't follow a multiple-hierarchical system
>(e.g. Canada, Germany, France) so you end up with lots of uni- or u-
>prefixes (ualberta.ca., uni-erlangen.de.) for universities which escapes
>the point: it's hierarchical with more generalisation at the end of the
>name.
Canada has provincial breakdowns. MY first ISP was
mindlink.bc.ca. Sympatico is an ISP across all/most of Canada and
uses <prov>.sympatico.ca.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Brian Inglis
<mi...@dimmick.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>I feel that the problem is not a lack of top-level domains. The problem
>is people registering names in the wrong top-level domain. If a company
>or organisation's market is limited to Pennsylvania, USA, they should be
>in .pa.us. Likewise an organisation in the UK should be in .org.uk. Of
>course some country codes don't follow a multiple-hierarchical system
>(e.g. Canada, Germany, France) so you end up with lots of uni- or u-
>prefixes (ualberta.ca., uni-erlangen.de.) for universities which escapes
>the point: it's hierarchical with more generalisation at the end of the
>name.
>
>How is brook-green.org.uk. different from my postal address (Aston Brook
>Green, Birmingham, UK)? It describes the name (brook-green) of an
>organisation within the UK. The existing top-level domains cover all
>the international name classes that we need. OK, personal domain
>registrations aren't really covered, but does .web. really suggest this?
>And if yours is a personal site anyway, just for personal reasons, is it
>really so hard to say 'my site is hosted by xxx.com.' with the URL, for
>example, www.dimmick.demon.co.uk. or www.aston.ac.uk/~dimmicmj/?
The Canadian registry follows a pretty strict geopolitical naming
scheme, similar to the principles you suggest, with three levels:
- national .ca
- provincial .pc.ca
- municipal .town.pc.ca.
Only organizations located within Canada can register and only
one subdomain name may be registered per organization.
Individuals may not register Canadian subdomain names.
Only federally registered, incorporated or chartered
institutions, and organizations with locations in multiple
provinces, may suffix their subdomain name with .ca, e.g
universities, national companies and organizations. All federal
government departments fall under .gc.ca.
Provincially registered, incorporated or chartered institutions,
or organizations with locations in multiple towns, may suffix
their subdomain name with .pc.ca where pc is the two letter
province code, e.g. provincial governments, technical and
community colleges, and the like.
Municipalities, local institutions and organizations must suffix
their subdomain names with .town.pc.ca, e.g. hospitals, school
boards, etc.
The subdomain name must be formed from the full organization or
trade name, by removing extraneous components and blanks, and
truncating excessively long names, by trimming components which
result in the least loss of name recognition. This implies that
punctuation may not be added, unless the name selected is very
short and may be unclear without it, but may be retained if it is
part of and allowed in a sudomain name.
See http://www.cdnnet.ca for more details if interested.
Of course, you can also be part of any other TLD that accepts
registrations from Canada.
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
--
Brian_...@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
use address above to reply
Brian Inglis
Sexton) wrote:
>In article <9533311...@elaine.drink.com>,
>Alan Barclay <gor...@elaine.drink.com> wrote:
>>In article <953319075.14888.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>>Mike Dimmick <mi...@dimmick.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>in .pa.us. Likewise an organisation in the UK should be in .org.uk. Of
>>>course some country codes don't follow a multiple-hierarchical system
>>>(e.g. Canada, Germany, France) so you end up with lots of uni- or u-
>>
>>Canada has a variable hirarchy system. A Toronto, Ontario organization
>>would have their domain in toronto.on.ca, a province wide organization
>>would have their domain in .on.ca, and a country wide organization would
>>have their domain in .ca.
>
>Which of course eevrybody abuses and claims to be nationwide
>and gets theirname.ca.
If the CA Domain Committee haven't heard of you or can't find a
record of you in the pulicly accessible government databases, it
appears that you are likely to be asked to provide evidence of
your claim. If you know of domains which have been granted and
may be invalid, try sending mailto:regi...@cdnnet.ca and see if
they do anything. Or have you tried and failed to get a
satisfactory response?
>People like choices; voluntary organizational structures
>work but imposed ones do not.
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Richard J. Sexton
>trying to do. I think he should do whatever he feels is right.
>However, I feel compelled to point out areas in what he does that
>might cause other problems.
Sure but with that attitude you can find fault with everything. I'm
niot sure it[s particularly constructive.
>My general feeling is that these types of problems make the
>alternative root movement unattractive except for a tiny fraction of
>the Internet community. I don't see how it could possibly succeed, in
>the sense that it becomes a trusted service (at least to the extent
>that legacy root DNS is a trusted service) without addressing these
>problems. I don't see why ICANN or any other organization concerned
>with DNS stability would embrace this movement. At most, imho, it
>demonstrates proof of concept.
We have Kashpureff to thank for that I suspect. 3 years ago
best.com and a raft of smaller isp's and evencompanies
like GTE Federal Systems were using it. This all stopped
overnight when Kashpureff redirected InterNIC. Careful
with thosehacke, Eugene. So now that he's completle out of the
picture there's no question ts anuphill battle but I remain
convinced that people want a comprehensive, coherant,
technically sond root zone. If ICANN dos this, great. If they
don't, you know whereyou can get it.
>>NSI is a commercial corporation. If you want to add a top-level domain,
>>I'm sure that you can, for a price. Assuming that this is allowed by
>>ICANN regulations. If not, you have to persuade ICANN.
>
>ICANN hasn't decided on any new TLDs yet. It does not surprise me
>that the decision has taken so long. They are justifiably concerned
>about the types of problems I've discussed here, among others.
These "problems" were discussed and thrashed out yers ago and
while there are no easy solutions there did seem to be consensus
regardnig what should be done about it, so I'm afraid I regard
it as little more than fear mogering, greg.
ICANN hasn't done anything because it's be captured by
special interets that want no new tlds - the trademark holders.
Think about it - if it wasn't for the expansion of new tlds
ICANN would never have been created in the frist place, that's
relaly it's mission. We had Jon Postels plan that I posted a UR to a couple
of days ago here, we have comnpanies that are ready to be put in the
USG conrtrolled legacy root zone and what has ICANN done? Createed
new sales channels for NSI, introduced the WIPO "Uniform Dispute
Resolution Policy" (which is turning out to be ANYTHING but uniform)
and noe they're looking at "Famous Marks Exclusion".. This is not
a body looking to expand domain name spoace, this is a clearinghouse
for intergovernmental agencies to have their way with Internet policy.
Daniel R. Tobias
>
> >Which voluntary structures work?
>
> http://anglican.org/domain/NamingMess.html
> http://anglican.org/domain/UseAORG.html
> http://anglican.org/domain/NamingPlan.html
>
> That's Brian Reid's multi-year effort.
A very commendable effort. I've linked the above "Naming Mess" page on
my own page on domain names at:
http://www.dantobias.com/webtips/domains.html
--
--Dan
Dan's Web Tips: http://www.dantobias.com/webtips/
jmfb...@aol.com
>>trying to do. I think he should do whatever he feels is right.
>>However, I feel compelled to point out areas in what he does that
>>might cause other problems.
>
>Sure but with that attitude you can find fault with everything. I'm
>niot sure it[s particularly constructive.
<snip>
Always, ALWAYS have somebody around who can find fault with
everything when you're designing. I'm talking about legitimate
faults and not the "you can't do it 'cause I don't like it"
kind. That way the design gets to be pretty robust.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Ben Harris
>root servers are within the continental United States. I of course have
>no proof that they aren't, but you brought it up!
--------8<--------
wraith:~$ /usr/sbin/traceroute i.root-servers.net
traceroute to i.root-servers.net (192.36.148.17), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
[...]
11 fddi1-0.lower-gw.sunet.se (193.10.80.34) 47.799 ms 47.984 ms 47.686 ms
12 i.root-servers.net (192.36.148.17) 47.437 ms 46.690 ms 49.057 ms
wraith:~$ /usr/sbin/traceroute k.root-servers.net
traceroute to k.root-servers.net (193.0.14.129), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
[...]
6 * transit1.linx.net (195.66.225.250) 86.305 ms 86.609 ms
7 k.root-servers.net (193.0.14.129) 94.227 ms 84.007 ms *
-------->8--------
The rest are at least routed to from here via the U.S.
--
Ben Harris
Unix Support, University of Cambridge Computing Service.
If I wanted to speak for the University, I'd be in ucam.comp-serv.announce.
Greg Skinner
>In article <8b0f3n$qah$1...@ns1.vrx.net>,
> ric...@ns1.vrx.net (Richard J. Sexton) wrote:
>>Sure but with that attitude you can find fault with everything. I'm
>>niot sure it[s particularly constructive.
>everything when you're designing. I'm talking about legitimate
>faults and not the "you can't do it 'cause I don't like it"
>kind. That way the design gets to be pretty robust.
Thanks, BAH. I think you've captured the essence of my arguments.
I have nothing against Richard. I (and others) find fault with what
he is doing because of the potential instability caused by his
policies. Also, Richard has been extremely critical of ICANN; he
should be open to equal amounts of criticism where it is warranted,
imho.
--gregbo
gds at best.com