North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: DNS ideas
Sounds like eDNS... and that model does work IMHO. On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Alex Rubenstein wrote: > > With all this craziness in DNS land lately (the internic going nutz, the > root domains wigging this morning, etc.), I had come up with on the > craziest thoguhts I think I ever thunk (!!). Anyway, what about a > structure like this: > > > 1) Root domain name server operators (RDNSO) -- a selected 10 or 15 people > in the US and abroad would provide thier *own* equipment, the bandwidth, et > al. The would do this *for profit*. They would be reviewed, approved, and > contracted by the 'internet community' as a whole, maybe that community > represented by a commitee or a board. These people would get PAID for > having the TLD servers. By who? See #2 # #3. > > 2) Forward Registries -- Everyone has been complaining about how bad the > internic, etc., and why should we have to pay for domains, etc. So, my idea > is this. The registries would *pay* the RDNSO to host thier TLD's on thier > server. This would provide a fair, and equal way for competition among > registries, without having multiple '.'s (ala alternic), and wouldn't > compromise the RDNSO, beacuse if they screw around and listen to the wrong > registry, etc., they would be thrown out. The registries can charge > anything they want; but, the consumer will have the advantage of choosing > which regsitry they want to use. The only disadvantage is that a TLD (com, > edu, net, etc.) is 'owned' by a particular registry. But, hey, thats why > you go to Ford if you want a Taurus. > > 3) Reverse Registries -- pretty much the same as #2, but in the ongoing > effort to conserve ip space (tm), the formation of multiple reverse > registries should be regulated (excuse the term, but nothing else really > applies). I think the end-all decision of who gets to be a reverse registry > is by the IANA, then approved by the board in #1. > > Any comments? > > --- > > "Don't go with a spineless ISP; > we have more backbone." > > Alex Rubenstein -- [email protected] -- KC2BUO -- www.nac.net > net @ccess corporation, 201-983-0725 -- 201-983-0725 >
|