Re: Comments on Karl's draft

[Karl Denninger <karl@Mcs.Net>]

> Karl Denninger allegedly said:
> > 
> > Hmmm... That does make sense.  What I was trying to do here was assuage the
> > whole "someone will run a registry on a 14.4 dialup line" problem.
> > 
> > The bottom line, really, is that for most TLDs a T1 is more than sufficient
> > (a SINGLE T1) -- even .ORG is probably reasonably-servable via a T1 at
> > present.  DNS queries are really quite small.
> > 
> > However, you're wrong about one thing.  Nothing prevents a registry from
> > satisfying this requirement by outsourcing the ACTUAL nameservers.  That is,
> > if you're in a developing country, you run one nameserver and contract out
> > on mutually agreeable terms to some other provider the other one.
> >
> > That satisfies the requirements (by *DEFINITION* you're multi-homed then :-)
> 
> OK, how about: It would prevent someone in a developing country from 
> running the DNS for a iTLD?

It doesn't prevent it -- it just makes doing so expensive.

We just can't fix some problems -- economic inequality is one of them.  If
you need to pay a monopoly telco US $50,000 a month for a T1, obviously
you're not going to buy one.

But if you set up a domain server behind a 56k line, and its inadequate,
then what happens?  The domain becomes unusable.  That's what we're trying
to prevent with technical standards.

A developing country registry can outsource this OR choose to bite the cost
bullet and pay for it.  That's also a decision which can be changed within
reasonable boundaries as conditions change.

Again, economic inequality isn't something we're going to fix within this
set of proposals.

> [...]
> > > > 
> > > > 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.?
> > > 
> > > Let's see $500/yr * (say) 200 TLDs, that's $100,000 dollars per
> > > year.  It's an old trick -- emasculate the regulating agency by
> > > cutting funding.  In this case it would provide heavy pressure to 
> > > create several thousand TLDs.
> > 
> > No.
> > 
> > If there is no significant traffic in TLDs then there is no siginificant
> > expense.
> > 
> > There is NO REASON, other than fattening someone's wallet, to hand over
> > money unless there is actual service being provided.
> 
> Given the number of allusions to legal action that you have made in 
> the past, it seems like *you* have already made the case that there 
> needs to be significant funds on hand for legal expenses, if nothing 
> else.
> 
> -- 
> Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",

If you don't do silly (or actionable) things, you won't get sued.

If you do silly (or actionable) things, you DESERVE to get sued, and the 
people who paid you shouldn't bear the burden of your insanity.

Anyone who's been in business for any length of time knows that by the time
the lawsuit is filed *both* parties have already lost.  The best strategy is
to develop policies and procedures that make that possibility as remote as
can be managed.

It just so happens that lawsuits tend to get filed when people think they
have been economically damaged in some fashion.  

One of the key ways to prevent them from being filed is *DON'T DAMAGE
PEOPLE THROUGH NEGLIGENCE OR DELIBERATE ACTION*.

That much should be *obvious*.

--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl     | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
			     | 33 Analog Prefixes, 13 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/
Fax:   [+1 312 248-9865]     | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal