Re: The view from my window

["D. Chiodo" <djc@microwave.com>]

On Sun, 22 Dec 1996, Gary Morrell wrote:

> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 15:55:23 -0800
> From: Gary Morrell <garym@lanminds.com>
> To: iahc-discuss@iahc.org
> Subject: The view from my window
> 
> I have watched the TLD debate for many months now. I have been on three
> mailing lists. Up to this point, I have remained fairly quiet, feeling
> that some of the more vocal proponents that I sided with could sway the
> debate and an outcome that I felt comfortable with. Sadly, such was not
> the case.

Being more vocal is not an indication of being right.

> Firstly, I must ask, how was the IAHC formed? How did these folks get
> chosen? Why wasn't there a "lottery" to be included in this committee?
> The folks with the most at stake, companies running new TLD registries,

Companies running rogue registries are obviously more concerned about
making money, and having power of parts of the Internet namespace for
themselves, rather than the continued smooth operating of the Internet
DNS. I would be very much opposed to any representative of such an
organization having any say over Internet policy.

> had absolutely no representation at all in this process. I believe that
> the debate that has gone on in this mailing list, the submissions of
> drafts, and the present period of public debate are unfortunately a
> sham. I see absolutely no components of Chris Ambler's and nor Karl
> Denninger's drafts in the current IAHC draft. I barely see any portion
> of Jon Postel's draft. Frankly, many of us were misled.

The only people that have misled anyone are people like Jim Fleming. I
beleive I have been saying all along that he was wrong, incorrect, and
illegitimate. If you relied on any promise or guarantee of what the IAHC
would do by him, then take it up with Jim Fleming, not the IAHC or the
Internet public.

> I find it amazing that the current IAHC draft doesn't even address the
> techincal and economic viabilty of prospective registry applicants. The
> IAHC claims that these issues will be addressed in the future. To me,
> these are the most important aspects. Furthermore, shared registries
> seem to propose quite a technical hurdle that has not even been
> addressed. Not one word about it in the draft.

The draft is, just that, a draft. It is not yet policy. You should not
rely on any draft, including the Postel draft, until and unless it is
accepted as policy.

> One of the reasons that Jon Postel wrote his original draft, and one of
> the reasons that the IAHC was formed was to stem the splintering of the
> namespace. Sadly, if this draft is implemented in it's present form,
> that splintering will continue. The Root64 project and the AlterNic
> businesses will have no choice but to go forward with renewed vigor. I
> think it sad that the many businesses and families that have registered
> new TLDs, as well as the countless thousands of dollars invested by

No one has registered ANY new TLDs. That some organzationations, under the
flag of "experimental", but for some reason waving the flag "commercial",
have conned people into registering zones in the illegetimate root
nameserver(s) does not mean anyone has registered any new TLDs.

On that note, the root namespace is NOT the place for "many business and
families" to register personal zones. If that is allowed, then the root is
going to look like .COM does now. A zone in the root should be there to
support the listing of subzones, not to serve as a zone for a single "www"
CNAME or one or two hosts.

> current registries, are completely ignored by the IAHC. The IAHC claims

The "current registries" SHOULD be ignored. They are not legitimate, and
never have been. That people have beleived they were is a problem for
those people and whoever represents those registries to work out. 

> to have the best interests of the public in mind, but what of these
> folks?

These folks tried to bypass the rules, and do it their own way. I see no
particular reason for anyone to worry about their interests but
themselves. 

> I have an open question to the members of the IAHC. Please explain to
> me what doom would befall the Internet if the root server addresses of
> qualified registry applicant's (ones who met the requirements put forth
> in Chris Ambler's draft) were added to the nine Root Server's cache

Cache file? Nono.. You've got the wrong idea. In order for any new TLD's
to exist, each TLD and delegations for it would have to be added to the
primary root server's root zone file. You can't just add a list of
previously illegitimate servers to some cache file and expect to have it
all work. 

I do strongly hope the IAHC will eventually hammer out a method for
registering new TLDs, so they can exist, and be listed in the root zone.

Some organizations seem to think that becuase they've gone ahead without
being registered, they have some right to have all the zones they "sold"
to people listed first. They are wrong.

Lets say you are in a class of student drivers. You decide not to wait for
your license, and just go driving around town anyway. You get pulled over
a few times, and get appropriate fines for driving without a license. What
chance do you think you have of getting a license if and when you do
finally graduate from driving school?

The Alternic other similar organizations are "driving without a license". 
Its not against any laws, but it certainly gives them no right to expect
special treatment. 

> file. I just don't see the problem. These registries are businesses.
> They would be subject to the same problems that all businesses face -
> supply/demand, quality service, competitive pricing, etc. No one is
> forced to register a new TLD. It's a free market. Some would thrive,
> others may fail. That's the outcome of the free market. If a registry
> fails, so be it. Many ISPs have gone under. The Internet is still
> chugging along. Imagine if prospective ISPs had to face the same
> obsticles that are put forth in the IAHC's draft. There would be an
> uproar. And many qualified businesses serving millions of people and
> employing thousands of people would have been prevented from operating.
> I just don't see the logic of limiting the new registries to the
> winners of a lottery. True, DNS is an itegral central core of the
> Internet. However, it's not going to break if new TLDs are added and
> run by qualified businesses. If a registry fails, the Internet still
> won't break. Please, go forward with the new shared 7 gTLDs. But let
> some of us run our own private registries - please.
> 
> 
> The following is not a threat. It is reality. I have applied for a
> trademark for .fam many months ago. I have been developing a registry
> for over 9 months. I have root servers deployed and I have arrangements
> to deploy more. I followed the "procedure" in July that Jon Postel and

You followed a procedure that was described only in a draft, and not in
any official policy?  You must have missed this part of the response you
received:

#        While there is much discussion of a process for establishing
#        new registries and new top level domains taking place, no
#        conclusions have been reached as yet.
#
#        Request sent to the IANA for a new top level domain will be
#        filed with the many other requests.  There is some considerable
#        possibility that this particular request will not be granted
#        (in simple words -- don't plan on it).

That you went ahead and "planned on it" is not IANA's. 

> Bill Manning put forth, namely mailing in an application for future
> consideration (lets not debate this again). From the list that Jon
> Postel sent out, we were first to register .fam. With all this said, I
> will be running a .fam registry. It will be an honest, viable business,
> just like my current ISP business. I will be very forthright with
> regards to the current small use of AlterNic root servers. Any attempt
> by the IAHC to use the TLD .fam will be faced with a lawsuit by my
> company. Take this as a warning. I mean no offense. Please choose your
> seven new gTLDs with this in mind. I fully realize that the AlterNic
> name servers have a small Internet penetration now. But I, and the rest
> of the AlterNic registries will be doing everything in our power to
> promote the use of AlterNic Root Servers. You've left us no choice.
> 
> I would love to work within "the system". I will continue to try and do
> so. I am amazed that the IAHC would write a draft such that anyone with
> a stake in the outcome would most likely be snapped off. Everyone that
> has invested many thousands of dollars and many hours of energy will
> most likely lose If the IAHC draft becomes reality. I think that the
> Internet as a whole loses if this draft, in its current form, goes
> through.

Many people who have invested much more have lost it all, over far less. 
The decisions to invest money was THEIRS entirely. No one guaranteed there
would be any way to list your zones in the root. If you have gambled that
there would be, then you are risking your own money. And if such a way
doesnt materialize, then you lose. The point, again, NO ONE GUARANTEED YOU
ANYTHING. If you gamble, you have to be willing to lose. 

> Is there room for compromise, oh IAHC??? Is there room for shared and
> exclusive TLDs? I believe that there is. Lets give it a try.

I will say that the idea of "shared registries" seems ludicrous to me. in
fact, the IAHC should not be concerned with "registries". They should be
concerned only with how root nameservice will be provided, and what the
procedures and restrictions for requesting and getting a zone listed
within the root.

This could include limitations on the length, the character set, the
connectivity and operational status of the servers that are to support
that zone, a monetary fee to the operator of the root nameserver, perhaps
even a declaration tht the zone is to be "public" (accept registrations
for subdomains for a published non-discriminating charge), with some
restrictions and requirements for such operation, or "private", wich some
restrictions and requirements for that.

I have had an idea for a proposal for a week or so now, and I simply
havent had the time to write it. (I don't intend to simply rip off someone
else's draft and insert self-serving clauses in it, either, as others have
seen fit to do.) You can probably get a good idea how it would read from
the above.

But the key point is, you cant _possibly_ have regsitered any TLD zones -
there is no accepted procedure to do so yet in place. If somehow you
beleive you have then you are either duping yourself, or someone is duping
you. That you have gambled that a particular TLD will be yours to use is
your concern. (And you are, obviously, concerned. But neither the IAHC or
IANA has made any obligation to you to address your concern) 


> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Gary Morrell
> 
> 
>