Rob,
Now we reach the crux of where the discusions *should* be... how do we
incorporate multiple "root" systems into the existing model?
I (and many others) have no difficulty resolving new TLDs, because we have
our systems pointing to other DNS servers for resolution. It is that
simple from a workstation perspective.
Of course, the big issue is the "hidden" coordination necessary underneath.
A few points on your comments:
1) There is not coordinated resoltuion method in place for the *automatic*
resolution to "root b" if not found at "root a". Many of us were hoping
(in vain, it appears) that ICANN would address this a a primary issue. If
they intend to address it at all, their current approach leaves me cold.
2) Neither I, my company, nor anyone else (IMHO) has the right to "own" a
TLD. The (sm) you see on my email messages is my legal protection (such as
it may be) to assure I have established "prior use" of the TLD. My
intention is to *not* be excluded from the potential use/operation of a
registry for that TLD. I see no other way, at this time, to establish that
foothold (I am certainly open to suggestion). I have no intention (make
sure you keep this message as legal proof, naysayers) to ever claim
absolute ownership of any TLD. A "service mark" provides certain legal
rights to the offering of a deliverable service, not to exclusive ownership
of that service nor the mark in use.
3) I have, as do many others, many customers ready, willing and able to
register domain names under new TLDs. It would be imprudent on my part,
and on my customers' part, for me to accept monies for a service I cannot
deliver with any absolute assurance. This, of course, brings us to a
"chicken-and-egg" dilemma. Again, it was the hope of many that ICANN would
provide a coordinating entity to address this. I see no such effort.
4) We do appear to have an ICANN willing and able to pursue the "strong
administrative control" to which you refer, and take it toward absolute
control.
5) In and of itself, strong administrative control is not the problem.
When administered by an entity endorsed by its "constituency" (with the
appropriate checks and balances in place) is not an evil thing. There are
many societal models which work and prove this out (do not constitute this
as an endorsement on my part, however).
6) IF my company, or any company with which I am affiliated, is afforded
the opportunity to operate (or participate in the operation of) any new
TLD, I would argue strongly for an open registration process, in accordance
with the then accepted practices of the Internet community.
7) I invite and encourage any interested party to contact me or any of the
other alternative gTLD DNS server operators regarding the operational
considerations for using the new TLDs. There is good reference information
at www.open-rsc.org.
8) Critical mass will be difficult, but not impossible, unless there is
wider pressure to resolve the political BS now at the head of the issues.
Too many are reticent to move forward without a better feel for where the
resolution to this mess will end up.
Regards,
Gene Marsh
+++++
Hi Rob Raisch, you wrote on 7/7/99 3:29:07 PM:
>Gene Marsh writes:
> While root servers are, indeed, necessary for
> resolution, they do not have to be the current root servers.
> Additional / alternate root servers can certainly be used
> (and ARE being used) for new TLDs.
>
>Certainly. But without some sort of top-level coordination to guarantee
>global reach for all roots and support at the browser-level to circumvent
>the arduous process of attaining global governmental imprimatur, they will
>continue to be low-use, limited-affect curiosities. (I'm sorry if that
>sounds harsh, but the chicken-and-egg problem posed by a TLD without
>valuable registrations is really pretty intractable.)
>
>You can argue that such top-level coordination already exists, and yet, you
>appear to believe (from the legal (sm) in your signature) that someone can
>"own" a TLD.
>
>The curious thing about a TLD is that, without customers, it has no
>intrinsic value whatsoever. It is only after registrations occur under it
>that any value emerges and it is this transfer of value from registrant to
>registrar which attracts registrars intent on owning and thus controlling
>the imaginary intellectual property a TLD appears to represent.
>
>The real problem represented by this misunderstanding is simple: allowing
>TLDs to be "owned" traps the registrant to dance to whatever whim of
>economics or perversity its "owner" requires. And so, without strong
>administrative control, such excesses will naturally occur.
>
>"Strong administrative control" is exactly what we wish to avoid, since
>this
>is clearly the role of government, not industry. You could argue that
>industry will miraculously manage this control, and I would imagine that is
>certainly possible, but there must be a select few who do the controlling,
>and that way also lies tyranny. (The situation we currently enjoy.)
>
>Of course, if TLDs are not owned and any registrar can register into any
>TLD
>as required by its customer, the problem of consumer entrapment evaporates.
>
>This is why I believe "the problem of DNS" is not one which can be solved
>by
>simply expanding upon the current system. Something new must emerge, in
>addition to DNS, which answers the larger issues without the attendant
>baggage or false assumptions of rapacious value.
>
>How do *you* believe the various proto-roots will reach critical mass and
>coalesce into a single globally-resolvable namespace and integrate into the
>existing DNS?
>
>I note it has yet to occur since I am unable to send mail to you directly.
>
>--
>Rob Raisch CTO - RivalWorks, Inc. <http://www.rivalworks.com>
>Who do you want to play today?
>
+++++++++++++++++++++
I'm very happy @.HOME(sm)
Gene Marsh
president, anycastNET Incorporated
