Domain Rant.

Fri Mar 21 03:15:36 UTC 1997

On Thu, Mar 20, 1997 at 06:37:42PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 5:46 PM -0800 3/20/97, Karl Denninger wrote:
> >What is it that you dislike about eDNS Paul?  I'd love to see some actual
> >substantive criticism (as opposed to "IAHC is God") of the policy points.
> 
> 	you've seen it, you just won't admit it.
> 
> 	you are setting up additional monopolies.  monopolies over critical
> resources are to be avoided wherever possible.  the problem for you, here,
> of course, is that monopolies over critical resources can incur windfall
> profits.  you want to allow that.  the iahc doen't.

Mr. Crocker, I really wish you'd stop posting material that just is not true
and that you *know* is in fact false.

eDNS enables *all* business models for registration of TLDs and SLDs.  
Not one, not two, not three.  It passes no judgement on which models are
appropriate, leaving that to the open marketplace.

Instead, it prevents any model or any organization from owning a "controlling
interest" in the namespace.  THAT is the public policy portion of eDNS.  It
is the only "policy" portion of eDNS which is actually enforced at the root
level.

> 	you are attempting to coopt an established administrative structure
> that has worked well for 10 years, rather than to work contructively on its
> enhancements.

18 months of working "constructively" got nowhere.  Eventually, the time
comes to change the structure.  Remember, the Internet credo is "rough
consensus and working code".  We have working code, and are building
consensus day by day.

> 	you are holding yourself beyond accountability

On the contrary.  I am one man, and the machine I run as a root is one
computer.  It is the only one which I own or control in the entire eDNS 
root structure, and will always be the only one.  I also have publically
refused to take a position with an RA organization, and will do so again 
if asked in the future.

Contrast this with the existing IANA roots, several of which are owned by
the existing monopoly registrar or have been partially or totally funded 
by them.  As an example, f.root-servers.net, which Paul Vixie has in his
control, he has admitted was partially or fully paid for by NSI.

Its tough to tell the person who pays the check every day "no".  Very, very
difficult.

My accountability is simple.  If I violate the process someone steps in and
my single machine gets replaced with another.  I have no authority or control 
over the root whatsoever.  Only consent of the people who use it, and who
operate the RAs and registries make the structure work.

I don't pretend to hold in my hand that which is not mine.

> 	you are pretending that the DNS gTLD space is a US resource rather
> than one that is global.

Nonsense.  The TLD namespace IS global.  There is nothing preventing non-US
interests from registering TLDs, and in fact more than one has (proof positive
that this statement is ALSO false).  There are currently registrars in Germany 
and Japan -- pretty much opposite "ends" of the world.

Proof follows and can be reproduced by anyone who does not believe me (eDNS 
delegations all have TXT records designating the RA and Registrar responsible
for their operation):

; <<>> DiG 2.2 <<>> txt jpn. 
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6
;; flags: qr rd ra; Ques: 1, Ans: 2, Auth: 3, Addit: 2
;; QUESTIONS:
;;	jpn, type = TXT, class = IN

;; ANSWERS:
jpn.	86400	TXT	"2-23-1-1038 ,Yoyogi,Shibuya-ku, 151, Tokyo, Japan"
jpn.	86400	TXT	"RA: Alternic / Shirokuma Publishing - Masafumi Yoshida <myoshida at po.iijnet.or.jp>"

;; AUTHORITY RECORDS:
jpn.	86400	NS	aragorn.alternic.net.
jpn.	86400	NS	nyc.alternic.net.
jpn.	86400	NS	mx.alternic.net.

;; ADDITIONAL RECORDS:
nyc.alternic.net.	86400	A	207.51.48.15
mx.alternic.net.	86400	A	204.94.42.1

;; Total query time: 6 msec
;; FROM: Jupiter.Mcs.Net to SERVER: default -- 192.160.127.90
;; WHEN: Thu Mar 20 21:10:19 1997
;; MSG SIZE  sent: 21  rcvd: 278

; <<>> DiG 2.2 <<>> txt ger. 
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6
;; flags: qr rd ra; Ques: 1, Ans: 2, Auth: 3, Addit: 2
;; QUESTIONS:
;;	ger, type = TXT, class = IN

;; ANSWERS:
ger.	86400	TXT	"Kennedyallee 89 Frankfurt, D-60596 GERMANY"
ger.	86400	TXT	"RA: Alternic / Callisto germany.net GMBH - Robert Hanke <robi at germany.net>"

;; AUTHORITY RECORDS:
ger.	172000	NS	aragorn.alternic.net.
ger.	172000	NS	nyc.alternic.net.
ger.	172000	NS	mx.alternic.net.

;; ADDITIONAL RECORDS:
nyc.alternic.net.	86400	A	207.51.48.15
mx.alternic.net.	86400	A	204.94.42.1

;; Total query time: 6 msec
;; FROM: Jupiter.Mcs.Net to SERVER: default -- 192.160.127.90
;; WHEN: Thu Mar 20 21:11:29 1997
;; MSG SIZE  sent: 21  rcvd: 264

These are new and not yet actually operational from my understanding, but
they ARE registered.  These two just happend to pop immediately to mind.

> 	no doubt there are more substantive criticisms, but one grows weary
> and the list is long enough.

If you remove the blatently and easily proven false statements which you
have made from consideration, you haven't posted a single substantive
criticism here.

--
-- 
Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| eDNS - The free-market solution
http://www.edns.net/	     | hostmaster at edns.net