Re: Int'l diversity in iTLD Registries

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>]

On Dec 12, 20:32, Kent Crispin wrote:

> *distributed* administration.  As I said at the IAHC BOF, DNS isn't 
> perfect, but it works well enough.  There is absolutely no reason why 
> distributed registries couldn't work at least as well.

If we were living in an ideal world, I would agree with you.

However, my opinion stems from fears of loss of synchronisation for
updates between the different registries. My fears are prompted by
what has taken place so-far. The two largest registries, InterNIC
and the RIPE-NCC (European Registry) have been totally unable to
integrate their respective databases - a task which, after all,
should be a straight-forward exercise. Back in '92, when Marten
Terpstra and his couple of colleagues were running RIPE-NCC, the
problem was lack of manpower to integrate the two databases. So
many years down the line, there is still no integration of NIC
handles etc.
When you see two players not being able to sync their efforts, do
you believe that more than two registries will be able to maintain
a daily synchronisation of their databases ? Imagine the day when
the same domain is awarded to two different companies - what legal
problems will arise ? Each player will reject reponsibility on the
other side. A recipe for disaster.

> Keeping DNS working well is important, of course, but that's not 
> really the problem at issue -- the problem of registering domain names 
> is distinct from the problem of good operation of DNS.  They are 
> related, of course, but not as much as you are indicating.

Agreed.

> there is a problem with having any large potentially bureaucratic
> entity running registration, regardless of how it is funded, where
> it's oversight comes from or anything else.  A gigantic central
> authority is contrary to the engineering aesthetics of the net, not 
> to mention intrinsically offensive to good taste. :-)

The UN at large (allegedly) looks like an enormous, amorphous blob
of bureaucracy - however, the vast majority of small working groups
(themselves part of a small agency, part of a UN project) work
damn hard, and act in a non-bureaucratic way. I've seen it work.
If you are worried by large organisations, then why not point the 
finger at SAIC, who owns NSI ? Furthermore, what guarantees does one
have, that if the licences for allocation of distributed registration
services are awarded to commercial entities, these entities will not
be major multi-nationals (whether TelCos, Media Conglomerates etc.)
which have a similarly bureaucratic way at looking at things, in
addition to wanting to make a profit out of the registration at the
end of the day ?
I mentioned UN because it is one of the only Organisations which has
had plenty of experience in international matters. :-) I could have
focused on other organisations (related or unrelated to UN), say ISO,
etc.

With regards to your last statement, "A gigantic central authority
is contrary to the engineering aesthetics of the net", I'll mention
this: It is an illusion to think that the Internet is a truly
decentralised system. It is *moving* towards being  decentralised
on the connectivity front, but it still isn't quite there. For example,
if tomorrow, MCI decided to shutdown its backbone, a lot of us would be 
returning to playing with carrier pidgeons. :-)

And with that controversial statement, I'll return you all to the usual
programmes.

Kind regards,

-- 
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond  |----------> Global Information Highway Limited
Phone: +44 (0)956 84 1113  | Always 60 seconds |  E-mail:    <ocl@gih.com>
Fax  : +44 (0)171 937 7666 | ahead of the past |  Web: http://www.gih.com/