North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Domain Rant.
On Thu, Mar 20, 1997 at 06:37:42PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: > At 5:46 PM -0800 3/20/97, Karl Denninger wrote: > >What is it that you dislike about eDNS Paul? I'd love to see some actual > >substantive criticism (as opposed to "IAHC is God") of the policy points. > > you've seen it, you just won't admit it. > > you are setting up additional monopolies. monopolies over critical > resources are to be avoided wherever possible. the problem for you, here, > of course, is that monopolies over critical resources can incur windfall > profits. you want to allow that. the iahc doen't. Mr. Crocker, I really wish you'd stop posting material that just is not true and that you *know* is in fact false. eDNS enables *all* business models for registration of TLDs and SLDs. Not one, not two, not three. It passes no judgement on which models are appropriate, leaving that to the open marketplace. Instead, it prevents any model or any organization from owning a "controlling interest" in the namespace. THAT is the public policy portion of eDNS. It is the only "policy" portion of eDNS which is actually enforced at the root level. > you are attempting to coopt an established administrative structure > that has worked well for 10 years, rather than to work contructively on its > enhancements. 18 months of working "constructively" got nowhere. Eventually, the time comes to change the structure. Remember, the Internet credo is "rough consensus and working code". We have working code, and are building consensus day by day. > you are holding yourself beyond accountability On the contrary. I am one man, and the machine I run as a root is one computer. It is the only one which I own or control in the entire eDNS root structure, and will always be the only one. I also have publically refused to take a position with an RA organization, and will do so again if asked in the future. Contrast this with the existing IANA roots, several of which are owned by the existing monopoly registrar or have been partially or totally funded by them. As an example, f.root-servers.net, which Paul Vixie has in his control, he has admitted was partially or fully paid for by NSI. Its tough to tell the person who pays the check every day "no". Very, very difficult. My accountability is simple. If I violate the process someone steps in and my single machine gets replaced with another. I have no authority or control over the root whatsoever. Only consent of the people who use it, and who operate the RAs and registries make the structure work. I don't pretend to hold in my hand that which is not mine. > you are pretending that the DNS gTLD space is a US resource rather > than one that is global. Nonsense. The TLD namespace IS global. There is nothing preventing non-US interests from registering TLDs, and in fact more than one has (proof positive that this statement is ALSO false). There are currently registrars in Germany and Japan -- pretty much opposite "ends" of the world. Proof follows and can be reproduced by anyone who does not believe me (eDNS delegations all have TXT records designating the RA and Registrar responsible for their operation): ; <<>> DiG 2.2 <<>> txt jpn. ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6 ;; flags: qr rd ra; Ques: 1, Ans: 2, Auth: 3, Addit: 2 ;; QUESTIONS: ;; jpn, type = TXT, class = IN ;; ANSWERS: jpn. 86400 TXT "2-23-1-1038 ,Yoyogi,Shibuya-ku, 151, Tokyo, Japan" jpn. 86400 TXT "RA: Alternic / Shirokuma Publishing - Masafumi Yoshida <[email protected]>" ;; AUTHORITY RECORDS: jpn. 86400 NS aragorn.alternic.net. jpn. 86400 NS nyc.alternic.net. jpn. 86400 NS mx.alternic.net. ;; ADDITIONAL RECORDS: nyc.alternic.net. 86400 A 188.8.131.52 mx.alternic.net. 86400 A 184.108.40.206 ;; Total query time: 6 msec ;; FROM: Jupiter.Mcs.Net to SERVER: default -- 220.127.116.11 ;; WHEN: Thu Mar 20 21:10:19 1997 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 21 rcvd: 278 ; <<>> DiG 2.2 <<>> txt ger. ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6 ;; flags: qr rd ra; Ques: 1, Ans: 2, Auth: 3, Addit: 2 ;; QUESTIONS: ;; ger, type = TXT, class = IN ;; ANSWERS: ger. 86400 TXT "Kennedyallee 89 Frankfurt, D-60596 GERMANY" ger. 86400 TXT "RA: Alternic / Callisto germany.net GMBH - Robert Hanke <[email protected]>" ;; AUTHORITY RECORDS: ger. 172000 NS aragorn.alternic.net. ger. 172000 NS nyc.alternic.net. ger. 172000 NS mx.alternic.net. ;; ADDITIONAL RECORDS: nyc.alternic.net. 86400 A 18.104.22.168 mx.alternic.net. 86400 A 22.214.171.124 ;; Total query time: 6 msec ;; FROM: Jupiter.Mcs.Net to SERVER: default -- 126.96.36.199 ;; WHEN: Thu Mar 20 21:11:29 1997 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 21 rcvd: 264 These are new and not yet actually operational from my understanding, but they ARE registered. These two just happend to pop immediately to mind. > no doubt there are more substantive criticisms, but one grows weary > and the list is long enough. If you remove the blatently and easily proven false statements which you have made from consideration, you haven't posted a single substantive criticism here. -- -- Karl Denninger ([email protected])| eDNS - The free-market solution http://www.edns.net/ | [email protected] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -