Re: DNS: SRS mechanism

Re: DNS: SRS mechanism

From: Adam Todd <at§>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 02:45:29 +1100
>given that the current unhealthy situation with domain names
>is to be rectified and that a shared registry system is to be
>implemented. the shared registry sytem must be worked out in

Hope they don't use the SRS being developed - and stolen last week - from
the CORE group.

Oh that's a beauty if there ever has been one.

>such a way that will be fair to new registries. MITs initial
>reponce to me was to go away as they werent about to give any help
>to any newcommers. I think this is a very poor attitude from MIT.

Why shoudl they offer help to any "new commers" Lets face it, they don't
even have an online process.

It's no wonder the USA and other such countries do not take us seriously
and leave us out of the DNS debates.

>neither do I think implementing any new domains under .au prior to
>competition can be seen as anything but self serving. so
>just how many domains have MIT served out in the last year?

The number is debatable based on the statistics I received last week from a
UK company.  Only 109,000 COM.AU names.  Doesn't sound like many more than
yesteryears number to me.

>the prefered option would be to have the zone file
>under the control of a neutral party to ensure that updates
>are carried out promptly and that applications are not accidently
>delaid to the bias of any perticular registry.

I guess this comes back to my IGNORED offer.  Initially I stated that I'd
offer the SRS resources FREE of charge to any "approved" registry on the
proviso I was also permitted to sell Domain Names in the Shared Space.

The other options was that for a small fee per domain name - charged to the
registry (say a $2 a year??) I woudln't sell Domain Names but woudl provide
as a neutral operator the SRS resources and produce the Zone Files.

As I said - ignored.  But then that's not unusual from a monopoly
situation, we've been putting up with it from Telstra/Telecom since Modems
created above 50 baud.

>nor can we have one registry enforcing its rules on another registry.

I do tend to agree that the policy for an SLD should be common to all
registries, agreed upon by the general consenus of the Internet Users in a
given region.  How to do that is yet to be answered and remains fairly
unexplored.  Some people put it in the TOO HARD basket.

Imagine if they put TCP/IP in the too hard ... And 33k6 modesm in the too
hard ...

>the keeper of the zone files must be completly rule free in this regard
>and allow all incoming updates that dont break lexical/syntactic rules.

Sure.  I agree with that.

>gTLD have a shared registry system, if it hasnt been sunk yet.

Nope, it was stolen.  Source code and all.

>perhaps this could be used, or at least provide some experience

I doubt it.

>towards building one. either way bulding one doesnt sound like
>a hard problem.

One exists, it's available, has been for 6 months. People just choose to
ignore it - well some do.  Others are working on ways to make it a revenue
stream for or to supliment their ISP interests.  I'll encourage that
option, as long as thingsa re carried out resonably and responsibly.

>speaking of gTLD I am also shocked and alarmed that MIT is selling
>and encouraging people to bid for these domains given the real
>possibility that the system will not go ahead. nowhere in the blurb

Are they?  Still? It was made clear to me by MIT staff they were NOT
selling them.  If you have information to the contrary I'd like to see it.
This has a serious obverser watching this process.

>I was sent is there anything that says what the refund policy is,

There is no refund policy.  MIT are paying CORE $2000 a month (from
September 97??) for the privilege of being a CORE reigistry.

Guess that fee went up this month with the requirement to replace to two
$70,000 servers that were stolen.

>or the fact gTLD had a very real chance of not happening.

It has little chance.  CORE blew it's position with the USG Green Paper
when it's servers were stolen.  The fundamental basis of CORE taken from
their own lair.  It was - to say the least - quite a ROFL story!

>this is disgraceful business practice.

Oh that's nothing compared to some of the other CORE registries in AU:

Enjoy :)

Hope you don't mind your $250 not being refunded when someone else grabs
your gTLD :)

      The world operates 24 hours a day ... so do the servers.
The advice offered in this email is not considered professional advice,
or it would be accompanied by an invoice. No permission is granted for 
republication of comments, without written consent.
Business Development, Technology Domain Registration and Network Advisory
Telstra Convery Member
Adam Todd                                 Personal  
Phone +61 2 9729 0565                     Network
AU Root Server Confederation    
AU Internet News  mailto:internet-request&#167;  with "subscribe"
Received on Tue Feb 24 1998 - 02:58:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:03 UTC