North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: offtopic for NANOG - do not read

  • From: Karl Denninger
  • Date: Sat Apr 26 15:53:17 1997

On Sat, Apr 26, 1997 at 12:37:53PM -0700, Geoff White wrote:
> > I'd like you to point out the major corporations and public universities who
> > will do this.  I'd also like you to immediately return that nice root server
> > that NSI has paid for in part or whole, if you really believe this.
> > 
> > Anyone trying to take "COM" and point it somewhere else will find that they
> > have created a class-action lawsuit with 1,000,000 plaintiffs -- all the
> > people who you instantly disconnect that have COM domains.
> > 
> > Anyone trying to STEAL NSI's COM zone (to appropriate it as their own) will 
> > likely find themselves on the wrong end of a monstrous lawsuit, not to 
> > mention potential felony theft charges.
> NSI does not own the root domain .com .org .net or any other TLD.
> They were *hired* by the NSF to manage the registration of domain names
> for these TLDs, and they have done a  deplorable job.  They are now being
> fired, if anyone is opening themselves up for a class action suite it is
> NSI for not relinquishing property that they have no legal right to claim
> as their own.
> Sheese!!!
> I wondered back in '78 how no-nothing dim witted liberal arts majors would
> ever find a way to make money on the Net, now I know... They all became
> Lawyers.

There you are very wrong.

Prior to September 1995 you were correct. 

NSI was released from their fee structure from the government at that time,
which was, incidentally, when they started assessing fees to users.

There were 100,000 entries in the table at that point.

Now there are 1.1 Million.

For 90% of that database, the development and operation was paid for with
*private funds* as a *private, for-profit, revenue-funded* business.

NSI put up the risk capital to do this.  They did so with no guarantee 
of a profit, and in fact claim they have lost money.  

When that change happened, the IANA (which really is the ISOC, as the IANA
doesn't legally exist) did *NOTHING*.  They ratified this ownership and 
business structure by consenting to the continued delegation of those zones.

I believe that if push comes to shove, this will be supported through legal

This is what I've been saying for 18 months, but nobody wanted to hear it
then because it was politically unpalatable.

Too bad.

Now we get to live with the prediction come true, and the ONLY fix is to
open the field to free competitive forces.

Now for my next prediction:
	You will never take COM away from NSI.  NSI has a protectable and
	financial interest in that database, the systems used to operate it,
	and a goodly number of the root servers themselves.  Therefore, any
	plan for DNS that includes "grabbing" or "opening" COM is deficient
	on its face as it fails to address the reality of the situation with
	that zone.

It took 18 months for my last one to come true.  This one should be apparent
by this time next year.

Karl Denninger ([email protected])| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity     | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
			     | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN,
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines!
Fax:   [+1 312 803-4929]     | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -