uDNS Root Name Servers Taking Shape

Fri May 30 01:14:18 UTC 1997

On Thu, 29 May 1997 20:01:29 -0500, Karl wrote:

>On Fri, May 30, 1997 at 12:48:23AM +0000, Ron Kimball wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 May 1997 19:14:29 -0500, Jim wrote:
>> 
>> >Karl,
>> >I am not sure that uDNS claims to be "better" than eDNS.
>> 
>> If by "eDNS" you mean Karl's thing, yes we do claim to be better in
>> the areas that count.  We will never dump the entire root zone to a
>> "clean slate" and tell people this is a "good thing".  We will supply
>> stable, business grade service with no "Freezes", "Ultimatums", or
>> "Premaddona posturing"...
>> 
>> Take care,
>> Ron
>
>Yep, stable, business-grade service.
>
>On recursion-enabled servers.
>
>Yep.
>
>BTW, the reason the original system is being re-qualified (which is what it
>is) is that a bunch of people were cheating.
>
>You mean you, and the others, can't qualify under the rules of *stable,
>business grade service*, defined as:
>
>1)	Someone answers your phone.
>2)	You are actually registered to legally do business in your state.
>3)	You have real nameservers on real circuits.
>4)	Someone can actually register electronically in your TLD.
>5)	Someone can use the web and/or whois to look up who owns a SLD
>	delegation.
>
>Well, blow me down.  Must be some fancy new definition of "stable, business
>grade service" here if you folks don't meet these criteria.
>
>Oh, and we're not assessing taxes.  Still.
>
>Ron, all you have to do is file the template.  I know that's tough, but the
>truth of the matter is that 90% of the TLDs which your defectors are now
>putting up under "uDNS" don't meet the above *FOUR* criteria, say much less
>being non-collusive and holding 10 or fewer TLDs.

<yawn>