Re: Comments on Karl's draft

[Karl Denninger <karl@Mcs.Net>]

> > Uh, not even close.
> > 
> > If you distribute the nameservers then you *automatically* qualify.  So
> > contract out one nameserver of the two.
> > 
> > DNS isn't a big bandwidth consumer.  Even large registries need less than a
> > T1 to really operate a nameserver.  This will be true two years, three
> > years, and five years from now.
> 
> Speed should really be kept out. This will have an unfavorable effect on
> developing countries. We could run on 64K or less if we have to. Many
> of our countries dont have the high speed infastructure you refer to
> and will not have it that soon.

Again, what's wrong with subcontracting out the actual DNS servers?

The servers and registries are really orthogonal.  In fact, it would be a
distinct business advantage in some cases to do this -- you get automatic
redundancy from physical problems that could otherwise disrupt your service.

> > > >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.
> > 
> > Yep.  Nonetheless, if I'm going to sue someone who holds a domain, I have to
> > be able to find them.  I don't think its unreasonable AT ALL to require that
> > if you wish to be listed in a directory (which is what DNS basically is
> > being used for) that your name, address, and phone number be listed.
> > 
> > That's the point, natch.
> 
> In some cases, it is preferred to ask those holding domains if they
> want to be publicly listed..."unlisted numbers"?

An "unlisted number" is by definition not in a directory.

DNS is being used as a directory service (yes, I know the people arguing
that it shouldn't be -- but it *IS*)

Since it is a defacto directory service, its silly to have an "unlisted"
directory entry...

That's like trying to claim a trade name but refusing to disclose who owns
it.  Try registering a corporate name in the US somewhere and refusing to
disclose who the officers are and a physical address for the registered
agent.

Forget it.

Same issue here.

If you want to publish an identifier on the global Internet, I believe it is
reasonable to require you to *publish* it and take responsibility for the
name you selected.

--
--
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