Re: Comments on Karl's draft

[Dr Nii Narku Quaynor <quaynor@ncs.com.gh>]

Ok, I understand. A model decision on DNS is needed ie as a directory or
as resolvers. In a phone system, the directory is different from the
acceptor of valid phone numbers. Secondly, on the disclosure issue we
may keep minimum information to preserve a comfort level eg. like names
of directors required while registering companies but not necessarily
home addresses. What is that level of information essential?


Karl Denninger wrote:
> 
> > > 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