Re: [ga] WLS: Dotster posts the definitive arguments against it,and more

[Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@worldatlarge.org>]

L. Gallegos wrote:

>On 11 Jul 2002, at 8:21, George Kirikos wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>--- "L. Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>I am totally against the WLS, but could you explain how it effects 
>>>security and stabiltiy of the DNS?  We're talking about .COM, not the
>>>entire internet.
>>>      
>>>
>>I'm glad you brought that up, about .COM possibly not being the entire
>>internet. I draw your attention to the statements of Verisign at:
>>
>>http://www.neustar.com/pressroom/files/announcements/7601-washington_busine
>>ss_jrl.pdf
>>
>>Verisign stated clearly that "I don't think there will *EVER* be
>>another .com" (emphasis added) It's that special place in the DNS that
>>requires that ICANN pay particular attention to the monopolist Verisign,
>>since by their own admission they are not just another registry. 
>>    
>>
>
>Still, please tell me how this affects the security and stability of the 
>internet?
>
>While it could be difficult if .COM fell off the face of the earth, it would 
>not stop the internet nor would it stop the DNS.  People would simply 
>have to (1) temporarily publish their IP addresses for websites, (2) 
>temporarily use their ISPs for email addressing and inform their 
>customer mailing lists, (3) obtain a domain in another TLD, (4) 
>nameservres using .COM domains would have to change to other 
>domains.  A mess for a short time, sure.  Irrecoverable, no.
>
>The interent would go right on working.
>
>Now, the situation begs this question.  Should there be tons of TLDs to 
>offset the devastating effect the failure of this registry could have on 
>millions of people using .COM?  You betcha.  Second question.  Would 
>the WLS issue be such a blistering sore if there were at least dozens of 
>TLDs where people could *choose* to go to any of sevreral registries for 
>their commercial domains?  Heck, the ones that had no such wait list 
>might just become  popular over night.  Competition would be alive and 
>well, this time among registries as opposed to just registrars for the 
>registries.  Of course it would have to be honest appearing registries 
>that were open to all on a FCFS basis.  That's not likely to happen 
>under the ICANN regime.
>
>But George, I still don't see how any of this affects the security of the 
>internet and DNS.
>

It's called OPPRESSION Leah, otherwise known as ramming 
unpopular/unsavoury things down people's throats without care for the 
LONG TERM effects.  Sooner or later, repressive activities lead to 
incalculably devastating reprisals, otherwise know as uprisings or 
revolutions.  The First Estate of the ancien regime in 18th century 
France didn't understand how their abusive rulership could affect their 
stability and security either. That is, until the guillotines were set 
up in the marketplaces of Paris.  Stop sounding like Marie Antoinette, Leah.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos


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