> Existing and future registrars, registries, ISPs,
> etc., could well collaborate in hiring some service company that DOES
> WHAT IT IS TOLD AND DOES NOT MAKE UP ITS OWN RULES TO
> FATTEN ITS BOTTOM LINE to handle root servers, domain name
> lookup, etc. ...
How far along are they, by now?
------------------------------
Rob contributed,
> > someone
> > was posing the case in which an attorney wanted "something.law,"
> > but the folks owning .law charge too much, are incompetent, etc.
>
> This problem vanishes if we demand an administrative
> infrastructure that explicitly supports registrars providing
> customer service to registrants, irrespective of TLD. In other
> words, I want to register in *.foo? I go to ANY registrar, or the
> one with which I have a strong previous relationship, or have heard
> good things about, etc. This is what competition is all about.
At first I didnt see how 'demand' fit into Bills hypothetical situation --
but the change of perpective helps find an answer for my question
to him. Its obviously not enough to see the rational solution to a
problem (especially a problem of standardization!); one has to think
of what those registrars, ISPs etc would want out of a 'standards
organization' -- and the obvious answer is that a good many of
them (think they) want exclusive control over a corner of the names
market. As long as this perspective prevails, so that 'multiple
registries' equates to 'exclusive access to certain sub-registries' I
dont see the hypothetical becoming acceptable to the powers that
be. (Sure, one can 're-register' in .per or .firm - and as far as the
DoC etc are concerned, thats fine, it can stay that way, and the
enduser can gnash his teeth.)
To get the problem to 'vanish,' then, *from the end-users p.o.v*, the
'demand' will have to have some teeth in it -- some incentive to
overcome the 'natural' monopolistic tendency -- but Im as in the
dark as anyone as to what those teeth would be. At present we
cant even say, 'Im not gonna register with you unless you resolve
Joes TLD' much less, 'unless you *all get together and resolve
each others TLDs.'
Arguably, a grassroots renunciation or boycott of domain names
would be effective -- who needs em if we can use IP numbers? --
but mobilizing that would be fairly incredible....
But wait, what about a screensaver, that uses spare CPU cycles to
*look up* IP#s for all DNs it finds on your system, and presents
you with a handy popup 'numbdressbook' -- or better, rewrites the
location slot when you enter the name in your browser? That is, its
your very own name resolver *for the names you use* (who gives a
fig about names you dont use?), and as net congestion grows, the
economy of going 'by the numbers' will start to be noticeable (and
could be noticed, any time one wishes to do it with names, so its a
risk-free offer).
The registrars that want to keep their business afloat will suddenly
find it in their self-interest to collaborate a little bit, I predict...
So how far along are they? Lets say it takes 3 months to get the
local resolver together (Jeff, hows your VC fund?) - I'd say we could
look forward to a International Consortium of Agreeable Nicks and
Notations by New Years, dont you? *And they'll distribute the
resolver as a freebie to DN registrants!
=========
J Weinberg succinctly states the *entire* rationale for names:
"IP addresses... are opaque and hard to remember. It would not be
practical for a user to have to remember, and type in, a different IP
address for every Web site he sought to visit or electronic mail
message he wished to send. ... The domain name system (DNS)
makes it easier for ordinary people to use the Internet."
All this squabbling over a way to save a body having to *remember,
and type in*!
kerry.ker
