new.net has a long way to go before it makes the grade. your shareholders
indenties and the need for full disclosure is a basic requirement of a
root infrastructure operator. you are asking the world for their
trust. you want to be their navigator.
well patrick - i suggest you get used to the fact that disclosure will be
a fact of life. there is alot of power in root infrastructure - and few
people know it.
example.
recently i had the opportunity of terminating root service for the
orsc. this was an interesting experiment. the orsc had 13 root servers -
two of which were on arpas managed by pccf.net. when diebold incorporated
- the people who rented the arpas discontinued service to the orsc we
ended up with two operational root servers on our infrastructure.
we had to consider the issue of liability. namely that we were in control
of namespace - and if a hacker should ever of gotten control of the
arpas the result could be catastrophic.
do you patrick realize the power their is in providing root service. as a
root service operator you have the power to redirect traffic - on the
fly. you have the ability to intercept financial transactions, logins -
etc etc.
thats one reason why i no longer us usg root servers - i trust the u.s.
government less then i trust new.net - i.e. the mess called icann.
also patrick - a good root operator has to be honest. and have a quality
called morality and a good sense of fairplay. new.net has failed in
this. you have duplicated namespace - and you did so
intentionally. there was no excuse for that. instead of being leaders -
new.net opted to follow the money. and as new.net is finding out - it's
not as much as was expected.
so i suggest that if you have any influence with them you make it clear
that the lack of respect which exists for them in the admin community can
be reversed if they would resolve the conflict they created in namespace
and also be inclusive of all alt. tlds.
the internet is not composed of islands. icann was to be a unifying force
- a leader - instead it is the biggest failure of all time in the network
industry. and new.net is the tombstone of icann - but the next grave has
already been dug.
regards
joe baptista
--
The dot.GOD Registry, Limited
http://www.dot-god.com/
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Hi Patrick,
> >
> > The last time there was discussion about your private root servers, there
> > were a number of questions and comments you or new.net did not respond to.
> > That in itself makes me seriously question what your company is doing, as
> > well as a number of other very significant issues. Other questions you
> > refused to answer included who are your shareholders and what is the
> > financial and power structure of your company. You seemed to think it was
> > none of my business to ask. Well, that lack of transparency sent a warning
> > flag up to me.
>
> If I recollect properly, you asked for detailed business plan
> information as well as the identities of our shareholders. Those things
> aren't any of your business, and I won't answer those questions simply to
> satisfy your curiosity.
>
> >
> > You recently wrote.
> > snip.
> > > disclosure" we are very comfortable that people who register names at New.net
> > > know what they are getting.
> > I am opposed to your private company controlling and selling domain names
> > for words that are in the public domain. I simply don't trust that a
> > private company will manage this resource properly.
>
> *shrug* That's certainly your perogative.
>
> > Certain aspects of the Net MUST remain in the public domain. One of those
> > is domain names.
>
> They never were. You are welcome to prove me wrong.
>
> ICANN rather one likes the organization or not, is not operating in the
> "public domain." It is a private corporation.
> discussion, but even if we were to say they were, public benefit does not
>
> > With that said, i am no fan of Icann, but i am less of a fan of what you
> > are attempting to do.
> >
> > No private company should be able to control something as significant as
> > TLD's. For 2 reasons. (likely others as well, but it's time to sleep.)
> >
> > 1. Language or communication must default to being available to all.
> > It is our collective public domain. Imo, you have no right to attempt
> > to control or monopolize or politicize .kids .xxx or . whatever common
> > word we all share/use collectively. It is potentially dangerous and
> > hazardous.
>
> That is certainly one view. It's unfortunate your world isn't big enough
> to allow for a variety of differing models of operation.
>
> > 2. If you go out of business in the next 48 hours, then there is a
> > possibility all those websites will go dead. This could do serious
> > economic, political and cultural damage to website owners and internet users
> > who use new.net's roots.
>
> Well except for death and taxes nothing in life is guaranteed. :-)
>
> > If you are serious about discussing or dealing with new.net in a public
> > forum, i suggest you attempt to answer all questions and concerns.
>
> Have you stopped beating your wife yet? :-)
>
>
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> Patrick Greenwell
> Earth is a single point of failure.
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
>
