Comments on Karl's draft

[Hank Nussbacher <hank@ibm.net.il>]

The following are some comments to Karl's draft.  I make no statement
whether I agree or disagree with any of the plans or proposals set forth 
in this document (or any other draft for that matter).  The following are just
comments (constructive, I hope).
>6)      It has been demonstrated that thousands (ie: 5,000 to 10,000) TLDs
>        will not break the "root" nameservers.  The currently operational
>        "root" nameservers handle upwards of 400,000 domains at present as
>        they also serve the .COM, .ORG and .NET zones.  This is done today
>        without the servers "falling over".  A load of two orders of
>        magnitude less in the TLD namespace is unlikely to cause any
>        negative operational impact on their functionality.

You do not specify a time frame for implementing 5,000 new TLDs.
All at once in 1997?  Gradually over a period of time? (to determine
whether your hypothesis is true (see following statement)).

>        There is therefore no documentable technical restriction on large
>        numbers of TLDs operating in parallel.

>9)      The root namespace (".") does not belong to any individual or
>        organization, but rather is a public good owned by the people of
>        the world.  The ISOC, IANA and IETF may, acting as a public trustee,
>        oversee this resource and its utilization consistent with the
>        following:
>        a)      Policies promulgated are expressly designed to permit the
>                fullest possible commercial and non-commercial use,
>                consistent with the provision of reliable service to the
>                public.
>        b)      The enactment of artificial barriers to entry into the
>                service of DNS names is improper, as no ownership of this
>                resource has vested, now or at any time, within the IANA and
>                ISOC.
>        c)      Fees assessed are consistent with services actually
>                provided, and do not accrue unreasonable in excess of
>                documented and actual expenses.
>        d)      None of the operating organs or committees of these
>                organizations have the authority, expressly or otherwise, to
>                act as tribunals or otherwise usurp the soverign authority
>                of the nations and states under which these services are
>                delivered.  As such arbitration of disputes is properly left
>                to the legal devices of those nations and states.
>        e)      Documented and actual expenses are kept under control
>                by adoption of a "minimalist" philosophy of control and
>                oversight.
>        f)      Policies and procedures are enforced for the expressed
>                and demonstrable purpose of maximizing connectivity and
>                the ability to constructively resolve names within the DNS
>                namespace.

I think there is another rule that needs to be stated: that the
ISOC/IANA/IETF, being entrusted with the responsibility for ".",
shall take all necessary measures that the Internet name space not
become balkanized and that the Internet continue to function in a
suitable manner as it does today (probably needs lots of
embelishment and fixing up but you get the idea).

>
>Technical Requirements
>======================
>
>A commercial or other interest which wishes to operate a TLD shall
>propose to the IANA the assignment of that domain, and include with its
>application for same the following information:
>
>1)      A diagram substantiating full multi-homed connectivity to the
>        organization's computers which will serve that top-level
>        domain, with each leg of that connectivity being at a
>        non-aggregated data rate of 1.536Mbps (US standard ESF/B8ZS T1)
>        or better.  Route advertisement via BGP4 for this organization's
>        connectivity must be operational for at least two of the connections
>        maintained under this multi-homed provision, and the network involved
>        should be operating in a "defaultless" configuration.

This might be valid for 1996.  It probably won't be for 1998.  I
would specify a time frame as well as when such a rule would need to
be revised.  I would also specify that the total aggregated
bandwidth by T3 or better.  Having just two T1s doesn't cut it
anymore.  Your section also leaves the ability for me to connect up
via T1 to two upstream ISPs - which are only connected via T1 (or
even less) to a major - who in turn connects to a NAP.  I would go
for NAP/IX interconnection at at least 2 sites in addition to
multi-homing.

>Administrative Requirements
>===========================
>
>Each entity holding a TLD shall be required to provide the following
>administrative services and policies:
>
>1)      A means, via the "whois" protocol, to search the database of
>        second-level domains maintained by this registry and return
>        common directory information.  This information shall include,
>        but not necessarily be limited to:
>
>        a)      The "owner" of the second-level domain, including
>                contact name(s), physical address(es), and telephone
>                number(s) of the persons responsible for the operation
>                of the second-level domain.

You realize this contradicts Allisat's position that he will not
release this information unless via a court order or by the police.

>4)      An administrative fee of US $500 per annum per TLD to be paid to
>        the ISOC for its oversight of this process.  The ISOC may delegate
>        this fee structure and disbursement of funds through open, public
>        procedure as it sees fit.

Do you really think $500/yr is enough to cover all the paperwork,
all the details you listed in section "ISOC/IANA responsibilities",
dispute resolution, lawyers, deletion, transfer of TLDs, etc.?

Hank Nussbacher
IAHC member
[The views expressed above are the authors alone and may not reflect
the view of other IAHC members]