At 09:52 PM 7/13/99 -0700, somebody wrote:
>> So far as I know, consumers can edit the fields in their network control
>> settings for most OSs to direct themselves to any DNS server willing to
>> resolve names for them.
>
>Actually it is a bit more complicated than that.
I should think so. Fact is, most consumers (Mom, Pop, Granny, etc.)
get lost without an icon to click on. It is this mind set among the
techie nerds which -- and this may surprise you -- lies at the direct
root (no pun intended) of the reason why individual domain name
holders cannot be recognized, no matter what they do. The techie
mind set is that if one is not an ISP, running a root server, seeking
the registrar Holy Grail, etc., one does not exist. The great unwashed
could not have got a domain name without the help of an ISP, and
when they get it, they get someone else to code up the HTML. They
only want to express themselves, and have an outlet for that
expression which will be efficient, consistent, fair, fully functional
and so on. When they get that domain name, they don't want it
taken away from them, because they'd have not the slightest idea
of how to start all over again without scratching most of what had
already been done. They have no notion what a root server system
is, let alone what to do with one if someone told them that they
were hooked up to one. They wouldn't even know what being
"hooked up to a root server system" means, let alone an OS or
a DNS.
In short, let's have a little less techynerd arrogance here, if you please.
Bill Lovell
P. S. I leave the rest of this communication down below intact, as an
exercise for everyone to guess whether the lady at your local library,
a "consumer" who is likely on the net half the day, would have the slightest
idea what it is all about. This is of course a proper forum for that kind of
analysis, but to assume that anyone outside of the field would know
anything about it, or how to deal with it, or understand it, or be able to
adjust anything to do anything, is a big mistake. It's a kind of techy
ethnocentrism.
>
>Relatively few user machines really point directly at any root server
>system.
>
>Rather, the settings on a host generally point to an intermediary server
>that acts as a resolver. This is a good thing because the intermediary,
>unless it is on one of those "operating systems" tends to run long enough
>to build up a reasonable cache of resolved names (and hence helps the
>system scale.)
>
>These intermediary servers are the things that usually point to a root
>sever system and these machines are generally run by an user's ISP or the
>user's organization. Some of us (like me) run our own.
>
>I'm now making a context switch and jumping into the notion of multiple
>roots....
>
>The key is to change our way of thinking about the DNS -- rather than
>treating it as a core, fundamental service, it can be conceived of as a
>service that can be offered by any number of providers and that users
>chose among those offerings according to their needs.
>
>We have an existance proof that this works -- there are a large number of
>publishers of telephone directories. Some of these are published by the
>phone companies, some are by folks who want to sell yellow pages(tm)
>advertising, some are on CD-ROMs (hence the Supreme Court case on the
>copyrightability of collections of facts), some are on web pages.
>
>Yet, they all lead to usable answers. If any one of these didn't it would
>lose market share and fade away.
>
>The DNS can work the same way - we simply consider that there can be a
>multiplicity of root systems, all operated independently, and all putting
>into their "inventory" those TLDs that they think they can sell.
>
>Because TLDs are now inventory, the root system operators will avoid those
>TLDs that are troublesome, particularly those that are disputed.
>
>That gets rid of the debate over how many and which TLDs to have -- the
>competition of market economics decides.
>
>Every root server system operator will try to trump its competitors by
>having the most complete inventory of TLDs. This leads to an end
>situation in which every root server system has all the viable TLDs, so
>they are all essentially equivalent.
>
>Then the distinction becomes that of value added services. And yes there
>are value added services that a root server system can offer to its
>customers. I've thought of a few that I mentioned - pointing to versions
>of the TLDs that filter out porn sites, or offering free registration
>services in your TLD to people who use your root system, etc etc.
>
>As for fights over TLDs -- this approach says "let the contestants 'em
>duke it out among themselves using standard economic and legal weapons."
>We don't need any new bureaucracy to decide, we'll just let the law evolve
>as it has over hundreds, if not thousands of years, through the resolution
>of actual disputes between actual parties.
>
>There are those who will wail and gnash their teeth and paint pictures of
>doom, of internet instability, of internet non-connectivity.
>
>To them I say: yea be of little faith in economics and competitive forces.
>
>It is my assertion that multiple root systems, if recognized as legitimate
>rather than routinely kicked and condemned, would quickly evolve into a
>very stable system -- each root system would carry all the TLDs that
>people want, otherwise the root system with the inadequate inventory would
>failas customers migrate to places they like better.
>
>And the TLDs will be the TLDs we expect. Any root server operator that
>includes versions of TLD servers that don't return the answers that people
>expect is a root server operator who is soon going to learn the phrase
>"Would you like fries with that" at his/her new job.
>
>In addition, the net would be in fact more stable with multiple root
>systems -- we would have elminated a single point of failure. We have
>seen what happens when a root zone is polluted, all kinds of bad things
>can happen. With multiple roots, we have an easy and hot fallback for any
>user that happens to encounter root pollution.
>
>The Internet has run for some years now with some small-scale multiple
>root systems operating in parallal to the one big "authoritative" root
>system. I've used 'em. Nothing went wrong. I can attest from direct
>experience that it it all works just fine.
>
>One reason it that it hasn't taken off is that those who espouse this idea
>have often been belittled and condemned and the idea is never allowed to
>be discussed fully and without prejudice. I hope that that is no longer
>the case.
>
>Another reason is that there is a great deal of momentum behind the
>current root system. That's why I've explored the thought that there can
>actually be value-added differences that would create a reason for a user
>(or, in most cases, the administration of whatever intermediary server is
>being used) to switch.
>
>Certainly, if ICANN is to truely try to say that it acts through voluntary
>agreements and is not Internet Government, then there must be practical
>alternatives. And for there to be alternatives in the DNS space, then it
>must be clearly and unequivically recognized that other root systems then
>the one under ICANN are legitimate, are to be permitted, and will be
>freely allowed to flourish or wither without any oversight or control from
>ICANN whatsoever.
>
> --karl--
>
