dcrocker at imc.org
Mon Mar 24 06:29:09 UTC 1997
At 12:25 PM -0800 3/21/97, Karl Denninger wrote:
>Now let's look at the alternatives to the current mess:
An analysis about which we all rest safe, knowing that it will be careful
and, of course, fully impartial...
>>1) IAHC - Nice concept, but troublesome in many areas. Jurisdictional,
> regulatory, due process, all kinds of problems. Unknown costs at
> the CORE level, unknown budgets, single-model.
So of course, let's start off with a maximum FUD attack. Heck, if THIS
list doesn't sow nice, solid fear, uncertaintly, and doubt, why bother with
> The worst problem is that if it sucks we can't "go around" it as
As noted already, this claim is fully silly, not to mention wrong.
> believe they CAN force NSI to play, or that NSI will voluntarily --
Indeed, NSI remains an interesting question, but since neither of the
'alternatives' cited here claim to force a solution to the question of NSI,
one wonders why it is mentioned, here.
> Costs? $20,000 to play in the lottery, plus $500,000 in hard assets
And heaven knows, we can't go around expecting fiscal responsibility from
folks who provide such a fundamental service for the Internet. Why, that
would be unAmerican...
>2) eDNS - Open. Consensual. Multi-business-model based. Build it
Open. You mean, you allow monopolies over TLDs. Multi-business. Well,
multi-business, as long as Karl gets to be at the top of the heap, in
charge of the root, and we all get to rely on Karl for oversight. Now
By the way. As soon as Karl refutes the claim that he's in charge, then
the question of who is responsible for the root emerges. As soon as he
responds that it's a coalition of the registrars, then we have to wonder
just how different the eDNS management scheme is from the IAHC plan.
The answer, of course, is that the ONLY oversight for the eDNS scheme is
the registrars whereas the IAHC scheme put into place a public structure
with public representatives, separate from those with a direct profit
involvement in the running of the DNS. Karl objects to such public
What is he afraid of?
The best part are his efforts to claim that such oversight is new and
unusual. This suggests a failure to understand the rough consensus mode in
which the DNS has always been operated.
> Operates on the principle that the policy of the root is to prevent
> market concentration (ie: monopoly) and collisions between TLDs, and
Well, then, the eDNS fails. It allows monopolies over individual TLDs.
This means that after you get your TLD, and after you invest in its use
with marcom collateral materials, etc., you are entirely captive to the ONE
registrar who controls that TLD. The eDNS claim that is does not "enforce"
a particular model belies the permission it gives for this scenario.
Rather than demure from responsbility for the problems caused by such
exclusive control, the IAHC model ensures that registrars compete on
service, not exclusivity of control.
With the IAHC model, you can change registrars. With the eDNS model, you
> jurisdiction under which registrants can select from. Lots of
> business models to choose from. Lots of different prices to be
Nothing in the IAHC plan dictates particular 'business' models, Karl's
persistant misrepresentations notwithstanding. The IAHC plan DOES dictate
a control model over the DNS resource, itself. And it does dictate that
candidate registrars demonstrate basic fiscal responsibilities, appropriate
to the level of any startup. But it does NOT say anything at all about
registrar business models.
>Which model SHOULD win?
The one which offers incremental enhancement to the existing
structure, rather than shifting the whole service over to a brand new
operational authority (an authority comprising folk with a track record no
participation in the larger Internet consensus process and of
non-comformance and personality-driven public behavior, at that.)
The one which ensures that registrants can change registrars
without having to change domain names.
The one which ensures public oversight for a public resource.
Dave Crocker, Director +1 408 246 8253
Internet Mail Consortium (f) +1 408 249 6205
127 Segre Place dcrocker at imc.org
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA http://www.imc.org
Also: IAHC member, expressing personal opinions http://www.iahc.org
More information about the NANOG