Domain Rant.

Karl Denninger karl at Mcs.Net
Fri Mar 21 04:51:20 UTC 1997

On Thu, Mar 20, 1997 at 08:30:52PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >eDNS enables *all* business models for registration of TLDs and SLDs.
> 	as I said, it sets up monopolies.  

No it doesn't.  eDNS sets up NO business model.  *RA*s set up business
models.  Again, you are confusing things deliberately.  

The eDNS model does not mandate, or prohibit, any model EXCEPT one which
seeks to stop other models from being born and tested in a free 
marketplace.  eDNS eschews monopolization of business models. 

McDonalds does not have a "monopoly".  They have a *BRAND*.  You like to use
that word because it is emotionally charged and you get a "kick" from it
when you use it.  

But the fact is that a company which develops a particular brand has certain 
rights which come along with that development.  McDonalds can stop people
from selling "Big Macs", unless they pay the appropriate license fee and 
adhere to their standards.

We don't believe this is "bad" in any other line of work.  In fact, the
United States and virtually every other country in the world honors these

Do you claim that McDonalds has a monopoly?  Or do they have a brand of 

> >Its tough to tell the person who pays the check every day "no".  Very, very
> >difficult.
> 	Now, you see.  That's interesting, because I don't have any trouble
> imagining Paul say no, even to someone who has been giving him money.  

Really?  Well, let's see.  So far they have all said no.  So far NSI has
maintained the monopoly.  So far *NSI* has not bought off on the IAHC model,
and in fact has issued press releases which pretty strongly indicate, at
least from how I read them, that they have no intention of doing so now or 
in the future.

Yet the IANA roots remain closed.

> >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
> 	Let's see.  That means that you are offering the Root du Jour.  And
> tomorrow, it may be someone else.  Personally, I rather have a system that
> ensures rather more stability for the DNS root and TLD service than that.

On the contrary.  eDNS is a process.  It is not a person.  It will survive
if I get hit by a bus tomorrow, because the *process* is valid.  It will
survive if I turn rogue tomorrow for the same reason.

eDNS isn't Karl Denninger.  Its a model for recognition of the development 
of competing models in a free marketplace of TLDs.

If the "all shared" model is the best one, then it will win on its own.
Nobody has to force it on anybody.  The "brands" which aren't controlled by
huge numbers of registrars, all with equal access, will fail.  

On their own.

I do *NOT* claim to be omniscient and know what is the "best" model.  I *DO*
believe the market can figure that out for itself without my "help".
Meddling in what is fundamentally a free process inherently leads to 
higher costs and poorer performance.  History says that this is basically
always true, and I have no reason to believe that you, or anyone else,
myself included, is THAT good.

> >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.
> 	Well, since I've lost track of the number of "how dare you take
> this outside the US" messages you've sent, your above declaration comes as
> a bit of a surprise.

Not in the least.

I've said that *I* want the right to register in a namespace which is
controlled by a US organization because if they screw me I want legal

Others may not see it that way.

Under eDNS, they have that *choice*.  Under the IAHC model, NOBODY gets to
make a free choice.

eDNS is about choice Dave.  Its not about people, and its not about
dictators or monopolies.  Its about users of the network choosing the 
models of registration that they want, and the companies who provide 
those models efficiently being the ones who "win" over time.

None of the other models can make that claim.  All of them claim to know what
is best for everyone else.  The arrogance displayed by the people making
those proclamations is, in many cases, transparent enough to see right
through -- most of those folks have quite a bit of self-interest driving
their conclusions, and the rest simply think they're smarter than everyone

Virtually everyone who believes that of themself is eventually proven to be
foolish at best.

Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| eDNS - The free-market solution	     | hostmaster at

More information about the NANOG mailing list