Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

At 09:23 AM 3/6/2000 -0800, Mark C. Langston wrote:
>From:  http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc01/msg00191.html for context, and
>http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc01/msg00192.html , I quote:
>
>"A million names under "." isn't fundamentally harder to write code or
>operate computers for than are a million names under "COM"."
>
>This was Paul's response to Eric Brunner's direct question on the
>matter of adding names and stability.  That eliminates concern #1.

It will greatly help discussion if careful attention is paid to 
counter-points, rather than offering facile efforts to treat the 
counter-points trivially and incorrectly:

1.  I did not say that Paul did not say what you quoted.

2.  I DID say that his opinion is one among a set of senior DNS technical 
experts and that others focused on OTHER aspects of the operations issue.

3.  I also pointed out the error in historical analysis, in which in was 
stated that Paul's comment "resolved" the topic

4.  Paul has very considerable experience in a number of areas, including 
software development and computer operations.  However there are some 
relevant areas that he has not worked in and large-scale customer servicing 
-- fundamental to a registry -- is one of them.  Hence the opinions of the 
range of technical experts is significant.

By the way, the fact that Paul made a statement about theoretical limits 
does not mean that he made a statement about the PROCESS of scaling up.  In 
other words, there is nothing in his statement that says that that limit 
should be attempted all at once.


>Concern #3 is never going to go away, because the TM/IP community will
>always feel infringed upon.  It's what they do for a living.  As long
>as character strings exist, the boogeyman of infringement within those
>strings will be seen.  Nothing can be done to eliminate #3, unless the

"Going away" is different from "Dealing with".  Apparently you want to 
treat the fact that it won't go away as an excuse for ignoring it.  That's 
not a very good idea.


>Which leaves us with concern #2.  NSI has provided AMPLE evidence of this
>behavior, and I will continue to assert that the Internet has NOT come
>crashing down around our ears.  They have at times been the very model
>of gross incompetence, and have done things many would not even think to
>test in a controlled scenario.
>
>Yet, somehow, the net continues to exist.

This suggests a) a lack of appreciation for the impact of individual major 
problems, and b) a lack of appreciation for the scaling effect when there 
are many more potential sources of such problems.  That is, the aggregate 
statistical probability of a major impact when there is a large number of 
equally novice registries operating on a large scale (as any gTLD does.)

d/

ps.  This sufficiently covers this issue, so I'll refrain from responding 
to further efforts, in this thread, to treat the scaling question trivially.

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA