Hi Saliya

To keep David Keegal sweet, this is my last "alt root" post for now.

On Wed, 5 Dec 2001 09:22:35 +1100 (EST), Saliya Wimalaratne wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Patrick Corliss wrote:

<snip>

> A DNS name that
> potentially points to multiple disparate entities depending on which
> nameserver you query is (from a business perspective) a liability.

Not necessarily.  Not if it promotes diversity, choice and competition.  I
mean any competition is a nuisance to those being challenged.

Sorry, but we need to eliminate business perspectives from the argument.
It's like Beta and VHS.  One might be technically better but it's a tough
world out there.

<snip>

> > 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 there would be no internet.
>
> That's not how DNS works.

Saliya, I shouldn't need to explain everything in specific detail
and you should have got the point from the use of the example.

> What would happen then is that nobody in the
> rest of the world would be able to see the .fr domain; all Internet users
> in France (provided they were querying working nameservers) would continue
> to be able to access www.linux.org or mail.foo.com just fine.

You certainly can't assume that everybody would do nothing about France being
switched of.  They are invalid assumptions that you have made (see below).

So what rot.  What do you really think would happen in the United States if
big
business could not acess France for more than a couple of hours?  Every big
ISP
in the US would be put under enormous pressure to point to a root server that
included France.

You are arguing from a "static" point of view.  But it's a dynamic system.  If
ICANN continued to refuse then they would be "dead meat".  Within hours, ISPs
all over the world would be looking for allternative root servers to point to
which included France.

That's exactly why I used a major country like France as an example.

> Pretty much the same thing that happens with the alternate root servers
> and non-ICANN TLDs; if you're not pointed at the alternate root, you don't
> see it. Making it worthless for business at best (and a liability for them
> in the case of a collision).

I've agreed collisions are a nuisance.  What to do is the question.

> > > 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.
>
> Of course it is. No three phone companies will allocate you exactly the
> same telephone number.

I'm sorry that I confused things with analogies.  At the moment I can make a
long distance phone call using any one of a variety of telephone companies.
I select which one by putting a numeric prefix (say "459") in front of the
required telephone number.

That routes the call through a particular service provider who then bills me.
But this is not a good example either, you will say.   I will shrug ;)

> > 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.
>
> Which has two effects:
>
> 1) Order-n complexity; everybody that wants to add a 'new' superset needs
> to add every superset that has been done beforehand. *not* good from a
> 'network stability' point of view, and

Not if you have a published superset that everyone draws their subset from.
In other words I agree that there neeeds to be a *virtual* single root.  Just
that it does not need to be controlled by ICANN.

The mistake people make is to think that just because something is done a
particular way, it is the *right* way.  Or the *natural* way.  The internet is
a network and ICANN has no more rights over it than anyone else.

Of course, people voluntarily accept the existing order because it is the
smootest thing to do.  If ICANN turned of France, they would find out how
quickly their authority evaporated.

> 2) possibility of collisions: both with 'legacy' operators like ICANN, and
> other 'alternate root' services.
>
> 1) may be able to be dealt with protocol-wise; but 2) is a killer from the
> business perspective.

Opponents of alternate roots always mix up the argument.  They say it won't
work from a technical viewpoint and then argue on the ground of consumer
preferences.

> "Oh, you got our competitor's website: well, that's because you (or your
> ISP) is using the wrong nameserver"

Exactly.  And how long would bad business practices last?  Again you must
think of the dynamics.  But it doesn't mean the internet won't work.  Just
that the two .BIZes would have to sit down and negotiate.  Or sue each other.
Or just compete to the death.

<snip>
> > The problem arises when two .FOOs collide in the domain name space.
> > Should that occur you have two root operators who need to negotiate.
>
> That's precisely the point. What if one operator refuses to negotiate ?
> According to the paper you quote above this makes the .foo domain unable
> to be used.

Ships at sea agree to maritime rule.  Otherwise they crash.  Somplie as that.

> But they want more choice only so they can sell more. That's perfectly
> understandable from a business perspective; but it's not a justification
> for (e.g.) .sex's existence.

In that case why is Australia considering the issue of new 2LDs.  Clearly
there's a demand which needs to be satisfied.  That's the nature of the supply
demand relationship.

> Saliya

Regards
Patrick Corliss