RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

Alf,

>I am sorry, I have presented my view in a way that can easily be
>misunderstood.

Me too. Let's move on. ;-)

> > At 10:38 PM 9/4/00 +0200, Alf Hansen wrote:
> >
> > OK. You will force all .NO domain name holders to host their domains on
> > USG-root DNS servers (that's the most you can ever hope to do).
>
>My intention was not to force anybody. The .no ccTLD registry is not an ISP.
>We are just managing a domain name space. What I mean is that the .no ccTLD
>will recognize the ICANN unique a.root and not rcognize alt.roots, unless
>specificly agreed with both parties.

OK. I'll try and make this simple. You are a publisher of information. That 
information is the .NO TLD zone file. This information is available to 
anyone who queries your TLD servers. Any DNS Server/Client that queries the 
.NO zone is similar to a consumer/subscriber/reader. From the standpoint of 
the publisher, your goal is make sure that everyone can view your 
publication, regardless of whomever is the distributor. It just happens 
that your distributor of choice is ICANN and the USG-root, and you want to 
give them a monopoly (it may not be in your best interest, but it is 
definitely in their best interest).

 From the consumer's perspective, other distributors exist. These 
distributors also subscribe to the USG-root. They get your publication 
(.NO) included with that subscription, and then they add in their own 
content and distribute that. The consumer (the DNS Server/Client) picks the 
best, most reliable, distributor to provide them publication service. Do 
you see anything here that parallels real life here?

The oldest distributor is the USG-root. It has the market share. It appears 
to most people to be unable to move into the 21st Century. Some new 
distributors have decided to enter the distribution market and provide 
competition because they see a market need remaining unfulfilled.

The IAB's official response is to say there is only one distributor, and 
the consumer's needs are irrelevant - consequently there is no need to 
address or rectify the underlying problem. As a result, the competition 
continue to gain market share everyday.

Jon Postel's goal was to introduce competition to enhance the reliability 
and utility of the DNS. Our goal is to prevent it from fracturing from the 
competitive interests of that new competition.

>This means that if someone uses our DN servers, they can be sure that
>uniquness in the Global Internet is taken care of. This is what I meant with
>"adding some quality".

Unfortunately, this only applies to your TLD servers (or DNS servers within 
your control). It does not apply to those who are just querying your 
published zones.

Look at it from another perspective. The .NO ccTLD (the same is true for 
any other TLD) has absolutely no choice in who recognizes it and who 
doesn't. It can make agreements with any set of root servers. You may think 
it prudent to only deal with ICANN for inclusion in the USG-root. Right 
now, the only organization charging a fee to you is ICANN. It might be 
prudent for you to make agreements with other "distributors" who will 
guarantee in writing to distribute the .NO zone without such a fee. Your 
obligation in that agreement should be limited to informing the other party 
of any changes to the ns glue for the .NO zone. Build stability.

> > It's likely
> > that those DNS servers will also host additional TLDs as they are outside
> > your direct control. You will police those DNS servers and remove all .NO
> > domains that are not hosted "properly". Everyone who doesn't
> > agree with you
> > is forced to go elsewhere and use another TLD. If they choose a
> > non-USG-root TLD you have successfully managed to create new alt.root
> > customers.
>
>Quote from the IAB-document:
>
>"This does not preclude private networks from operating their own private
>name spaces, but if they wish to make use of names uniquely defined for
>the global Internet, they have to fetch that information from the global
>DNS naming hierarchy, and in particular from the coordinated root servers
>of the global DNS naming hierarchy."

That's ambiguous. It just describes how DNS works. Each alt.root could be 
considered a unique name space and it would apply equally in that context. 
RFC2826 provides almost as much clarity for operators of non-unique name 
spaces as RFC1591's famous "It is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs 
will be created."

>Anyone can of course use whichever DN server they like, but if they use
>ours, they can be certain that they fetch the information from "the global
>DNS naming hierarchy, and in particular from the coordinated root servers
>of the global DNS naming hierarchy".

So then they get a limited sub-set of all the possible published zones. 
What do you think will happen when the public find this out?


Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

--
It's a feature not a bug...

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html