Hi Saliya

On Tue, 4 Dec 2001 22:30:04 +1100 (EST), Saliya Wimalaratne wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > As I say in my sig file, I am a Director of the Top Level Domain
> > Association (TLDA).  This is an industry association set up by
> > TLD holders (rather than the roots) to promote their TLD offerings.
> >  It is also concerned to eliminate "colliding" TLDs.  It does not seek
> > to overthrow ICANN.
>
> > All of the current "alt" roots, except two, have agreed with each other to
> > avoid colliders.  There is some disagreement about who has priority in
> > relation to a particular TLD on a first com first served basis.  The main
> > offender (i.e. who disregards priority TLD claims) is NewNet.
>
> Why would anybody but ICANN have 'priority' ?
> Who would make such a decision if not ICANN ?
> Why would NewNet be any less entitled to use *any damn names they like*
> than 'legacy' (if you could dignify them with the term) alternate roots ?

My intention was simply to explain how NewNet worked and not to get into a
justification of their methods.  I have neither the time nor the inclination
particularly as you appear to have already formed your own opinions.

I will simply say that, to the other roots, ICANN has no more authority than
anyone else.  There is a network which is not owned by ICANN and which users
from all around the world have access.

Any ISP can point their name servers where they want.  They are answerable
to their own clients.  I can't see why different root operators can't share
the
network.

> > Holders of TLDs can switch from one root to another without much of a
> > problem.  This causes the root managers to support the various TLDs in
> > their portfolio.  In such a system, the most successful root may be the
> > one that includes the greatest number of TLDs on offer.  It must also not
> > have any "colliders".
>
> The point being, that at some point, in order to avoid 'colliders',
> someone needs to be authoritative (i.e. an ICANN). Otherwise; you can
> setup (for example) ".foo" and I can setup ".foo" and Joe across the rode
> can setup ".foo"; and who is right ?

It is preferable for all root operators to cooperate.  But let me give you a
hypotheical situation, if I may.  Let's say ICANN decided to charge France a
large amount of money for the privilege of having .FR loaded into the legacy
zone file.  Then France refused to pay.

What would ICANN do?  Remove .FR from the zone file, perhaps.  That would turn
out the internet for all .FR websites in the world.

If that happened, I would guess that the French government would set up a root
server within hours.  And instruct all of the French ISPs to point their name
servers at that root server.  Everybody in France would comply as otherwise
their would be no internet.

Now that root server would not be controlled by ICANN.  However, the internet
would still work.

> Explain which of the three clients that purchased "domain.foo" from the
> three vendors is right ? And why ? And just *how* this is 'better' for the
> punter than the existing system ?

That's not different from me signing up with a mobile phone company.

<snip>

> No offence to Karl Auerbach; but this discussion seems to be more related
> to 'ICANN is bad' and 'if condition 'x' is met, this is what will happen'
> rather than a dissertation on just how this is possible given the current
> infrastructure.

That wasn't my perception of the article.

<snip>

> Without a 'single' root level server(s), maintained by a single body, no
> single root server can find arbitrary domain 'x' unless they query every
> other root server on the planet. If they do not query every other server,
> how do they decide which to include, and which not to ? And if everyone is
> allowed to run a root server, the task of finding domain 'x' becomes
> hideously expensive.

I'm not sure that you understand what is being proposed.  ICANN runs a root
server with, say, 250 extensions including .com and .au.  Were another root
operator to suplement those 250 extension with a dozen more, they would have
262 extensions.  Any ISP pointing to the second root server would get ICANN's
250 plus an extra 12 which ICANN doesn't provide.

Should a third root operator come into the picture with a disjoint set of
another dozen extensions then the third operator could run a superset which
incorporates all the extensions.  Any one else can run a superset.
Alternatively, anyone can run a subset if they, for example, omitted
extensions like .SEX which they disapproved of on moral grounds.

Anyone who signs up with that ISP would the get all the extension except .SEX.
In other words, the .SEX extension would not resolve for the users of that
ISP.   Some people might consider that a worwhile service.

The problem arises when two .FOOs collide in the domain name space.
Should that occur you have two root operators who need to negotiate.

> This is inherent in the way the DNS works right now. Extensions (or a
> replacement protocol) need to be written before this behaviour can be
> modified. And perhaps that will happen; but not in the way that the
> so-called 'Alternate Root' servers or vendors like New.Net are doing it
> today.

I don't get what you are saying here.  As long as NewNet is running additional
extensions, Icann doesn't care very much.  However, like .BIZ there is a
potential for subsequent conflict.

In fact, I'm sure that ICANN created the collider deliberately as a test.

> > It will never happen partly because swags of people have other agendas.
>
> Sure. People want to cut up the domain space and sell it; and because the
> domain space is restricted they want to find ways to either a) cut it up
> smaller or b) enlarge the space by defining new TLDs.

My .FR example is not too far fetched to happen.  Especially with some of the
countries involved in a conflict with the United States.  Don't forget their
extensions could be embargoed by sanctions.

> The funny thing is; there are enough names to go around right now.

The TLD operators want more choice like .SEX.  If ICANN were to issue them
none of this could have happened.

> Regards,
> Saliya

Regards
Patrick Corliss
_________________________________________________________
I'm on the Board of auDA (the .au country code) as well as TLDA (the Top
Level Domain Association).   Please note that anything I write is my own
personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of any body
with which I am associated.  Please also note IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer).






--
This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
express permission of the author. 321 subscribers. 
Archived at http://listmaster.iinet.net.au/list/dns (user: dns, pass: dns)
Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167;auda.org.au to be removed.