Re: Anti Capitalism?

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Perry E. Metzger allegedly said:
> 
> 
> Kent Crispin writes:
> > Perry E. Metzger allegedly said:
> > There could be many escrow agents.  And it would be a pretty extreme 
> > dispute or a really unusual failure mode that would make the data 
> > unavailable.  Finally, neither of these cases require realtime 
> > availability. 
> 
> If our objective is to minimize complexity and expense, this escrow
> idea certainly goes counter to the objective.

No, it is just a more flexible way of characterizing things.  The 
draft currently specifies an *implementation* of escrow.  I was 
taught, back when I was young, that you should first specify 
*requirements*, and then develop implementations.  The 
requirement is that the data be escrowed.  A central database is one 
way to meet that requirement.  It's not the only way.

Even so, having the data in DNS is sufficient to cover both dispute 
resolution and registry failure -- on registrar failure you scan the 
zone database for all contacts for domains represented by the failed 
registrar, and send them email that their registrar has failed and 
that they need to contact another one.

> Your notion of storing the idea in the DNS is also a problem -- you
> cannot search the DNS, you cannot map handles into the DNS, and if a
> DNS server goes down you lose the ability to get contact information
> for that domain -- very bad.

Your first two points have been addressed elsewhere.  Regarding a DNS 
server going down -- 1) DNS servers for a TLD should have many 
secondaries; 2) in the event of a truly catastrophic failure of DNS 
the master zone file could be consulted; 3) DNS gropers will have 
pulled all this data into a white-pages directory services anyway.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E  87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F