Re: Rouge Servers ... Please ... that's below the belt.

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Adam,

  Great post!  I agree with nearly every word.  But you have to excuse
poor Dave, he is living in a world of his own.  Not everyone elses.
Shame really.  Sometimes he has something truely remarkable to say,
BUT DAM RARELY!.

  His reputation in the area of cooperation is well known to not
exist.  This is unfortunate.  The world is too small a place for
folks like him anymore.  Unfortunatly Dave doesn't realize it
yet.  When he does, if ever, the shock will be terrible for him I 
am quite sure.  

  I myself look forward to cooperating with you and Jay or anyone
else whom is intrested.

  Thank you for these comments very much.

Adam wrote:
> 
> [This is a lengthy post, but I belive perhaps people should read it
> carefully, in particular jump straight to the last few paragraphs.  If
> anyone suggests I'll break it into three parts and post them separately
> (and subject titled approriately) so you can read only the revelvant bits.)
> 
> >>I'd like to know how long Dave is going to continue to insult our
> >>intelligence.
> 
> >       alas, the major insult is that you seem to confuse a number of issues
> >as a consequence fail to understand the need for a coherent name space.
> 
> But when have I EVER stated a lack of understanding about coherant name
> space, and further WHEN have I ever made a comment that doesn't support
> coherant and equal continued space?
> 
> >>It does not have to be located anywhere in particular.  As long as any root
> >>server can find any other root server and all the DN Servers connected to
> >
> >       no.  "root server" refers to a machine which contains the list of
> >top-level names.  It then points to servers which operate on behalf of
> >those TLDs.  If you have different root servers with different sets of TLDs
> >then you have different name spaces.
> 
> Who said the "different" root server had to have "different" name space.
> Are you telling me that the "existing" Root Servers all have different name
> space?  What no, your telling me thay talk to each other and their database
> files are co-ordinated from ONE server.
> 
> Fine.  Nothing wrong with that ... almost.
> 
> >       if my root server points to a different subordinate server for .WEB than
> >does yours, we have a conflicted name space.  avoiding this problem
> 
> Why on EARTH would *I* as a responsible and ethical person cause such a
> conflict?  That would be plain ignorance.
> 
> I can take by the above statement not only do you insult my intelligence
> and aims but also my technical and ethical capabilities.
> 
> I am severely insulted and feel more strongly towards the statement "Dave
> Crocker is waving a black magic wand in front of people who have no
> knwoledgeable understabding of the process'".
> 
> 5 years ago people though email was magic, now they do it from their home
> computers.  Most haven't a clue how it works, some watch the traffic and
> learn about SMTP and POP, others read the RFC's and play around writing
> their code.
> 
> Thats a clear indication that about 10% of the people LEARN how to make it
> work, 20% watch and understand the protocol, and the remainder don't care
> as long as the magic works.
> 
> Dave, please stop waving your wand.  Internet will only work whilst all
> people cooperate.  One of the biggest issues I have in Australia is the
> lack of ISP cooperation.  Even after deregulation and Telstra literally
> wiping the ISP's face in the dust, they still haven't learnt to COOPERATE.
> 
> Isn't that where Internet ... ala IP ... started?  A need for two computers
> of different types to cooperatively exchange data?
> 
> There's that nasty 'C' word that money hungry people don't like, because it
> means they can't proprietorily OWN the item.
> 
> >requires central management.  hence, another major function of the root
> >servers is to coordinate use of the name space to ensure uniqueness.
> 
> So you mean to say that my 'subdomain' requires management from the root
> servers?  Hang on, if I remove all referances to a first level domain and
> only have all machines in my network point to my DNS server with the local
> tables, I'll resolve all of those no problems.  It in effect becomes a ROOT
> SERVER, in a loose way.  Now if I want to bring in data from other
> networks, I load in their tables.  Funny that's how DNS started, we use to
> swap HOSTS files and build great big monsterous text HOSTS files to convert
> IP addresses to names.
> 
> DNS was created as a database retreival system to look up and if not
> locally found, go forth and seek it down.  But of course, a "central"
> localtion was needed to find the starting point.  Like reading a book, you
> can read the whole damn book to find out where the "Blue Catapillers" are
> or yu can turn to the index and ask for the page.
> 
> If I have several books, as long as all people called them "BLue
> Catapillers" I'll find them in all instances.  If someone calls dogs "Blue
> Catapillers" I'll have a conflict.
> 
> I through that book out, because it's clearly corrupt.
> 
> So how if people are ethical, and of course many won't be, can the name
> space be corrupt.  I don't appreciate your personal attacks on my
> ambitions, goals and cost savings for AU people.
> 
> >>Dave, I'm getting a little irrate at being called "Rouge" and certainly
> >
> >       probably making you red in the face?
> 
> Not red in the face, no I can't agree with that.  Perhaps steamed up at the
> lack of cooperation and the fake attitudes these types extend to the
> community at large.
> 
> I'll continue whilst i have support, and I have support and a growth of
> interest.  Egads, I even have ISP's offering to HOUSE Top level servers for
> me natioanlly and overseas now.  If every ISP points to my Root Servers I
> guess the IANA (now is this a fact?) or NSF servers will become redundant.
> 
> If everyone stopped buying Coke tomorrow, I know one company that would
> almost go broke.
> 
> >       alas, I called you rogue, not rouge.  given the definition of rogue,
> 
> (in such case, probably a typo, I did have a very long day with more than 4
> hours driving home)
> 
> >not surprising that you don't like it's use.  given the long-term damage
> >that will be caused by the alternate root servers, the term is nonetheless
> >warranted.
> 
> Why?  As long as the 'alternate' root server managementy doesn't
> intentianally conflict with existing name space and shares and makes
> available to other Root Servers the data, there is no problem.
> 
> Gosh right now I could load in a .COM table here and wipe out around 30% of
> the AU access to .COM.
> 
> Pretty powerful position to be in if you ask me.  I could hold users and
> .COM owners to ransom!  Nah too much invoicing and paperwork.
> 
> Sounds like what you and your clowns are trying to do with the gTLD and the
> constant banter about 'corrupt' name space.
> 
> What if the Root Server now in London was taken hostage and someone loaded
> in their own tables?  Your finished.  End of story.
> 
> What if MCI, re-routed all port 53 requests to their own Cached server ...
> to save bandwidth utilisation and congenstion?
> 
> I know this is in fact a plan that Telstra are using to dominate the Cable
> and Big Pond network users.  They like to own the world.
> 
> >>In fact are you aware that since AURSC's inception we have saved those
> >>ISP's using our ROOT Servers considerable $$$$ off their bill.
> >
> >       I think that having a server which provides pure secondary to the
> official root servers -- i.e., maintains an exact copy of the official
> roots -- is a dandy idea.  The instant you start claiming to register TLDs,
> however, you
> 
> Ok so we have agreement thus far.  If all external connections to the world
> (and there are only 5 Internet chunks out of Australia) were severed right
> now, I could still over full resolution services fro all domain names.
> Unconditionally.
> 
> >are doing more than being a secondary and therefore you are doing more than
> >saving on traffice.  You are altering the name space.  This is then not a
> >matter of saving money but, rather, of trying to take over the domain name
> >service.
> 
> I don't want to take it over, I want to do a number of things:
> 
> 1.  Offer an alternative and competitive service, the Root Servers and
> network connections have to be paid from somehow.  Money isn't endless
> unless your the IMC getting US Government Grants.  We don't get those here
> and Australia needs to have some control over it's destiny.  The USA
> donesn't make decisions for us.
> 
> 2.  Because of the current pricing structure of even the AU name sapce,
> people want an alternative.  MelbourneIT and InterNIC and yourself are
> running scared of the millions of dollars that will go elsewhere if
> competitive services were available.  No more $100 domain names, because
> TLD Owners woudl be able to CHOOSE what price to charge.
> 
> 3.  I already have in place a NO CORRUPT rule, I have power of VETO over
> every decision the AURSC makes and whilst the decisions remain in the
> cooperative spirit and ADD to the internet, I'm happy.
> 
> By hijacking the Root Servers yourself as gTLD and only issuing "a few"
> Registras and maybe a few new TLD's you are monopolosiing a FREE market.
> 
> I wish I could sit in your seat and have the support *I* currently have,
> atTLD would be active tomorrow morning, but I would still have to focus on
> cooperative efforts.
> 
> You will have noticed from an earlier comment or two on this list that Jay
> Fernello has managed to get all the RSC's to carry the .PER domain.
> 
> That's cooperation.  There were no objections.
> 
> I'm scared of .PER   It's bad news to my market here for my "alternate
> business agenda".  How can I sell Domain Names in AU to people under a
> similar policy as Iperdome for $50 if he does them for $35?
> 
> I can't afford to host domain names for less than $50 a year because the
> traffic costs are to high to do anything alternate.
> 
> I cant afford to have  .PER outside of my root servers beacuse the constant
> requests that would come from my networks and often bypass my DNS servers
> would add additioanl cost to my IP transit bill each month.
> 
> So by hosting it I can compete with it at $50 ... (no one said life was
> easy), I stop all the request avoiding my servers and I pull in only ONE
> copy of the data each refresh time, if required.
> 
> If I let the data expire and the DNS server go and get a new copy, I'll be
> paying for bandwidth again, by hosting the data itself, I only check to
> SOA.  I know I'd rather send one international request a day than several
> hundred ... or more.
> 
> >>Now if Dave can't bother answering that question, then the true merits of
> >>his actions and comments are clear.
> >
> >       well, since you altered your from field, you clever devil you, the
> >message slipped through my filter.
> 
> Yes I'm aware of that.  I'm now going back to being ethical and hoping you
> will respond to my "prefered address".  If you don't I'll have to find yet
> another alternative.  I have hundreds of email addresses around the world,
> You could have a very hard time filtering me if I wished.  I'd hope I
> woudln't have to go to that extent.
> 
> Your failure to comment to me until now is clearly a lack of cooperation.
> 
> I could go ona about Pauline Hanson in AU, but in brief the ANTI Hanson
> cmpaigners are giving her more publicity than she brings in herself.
> 
> By Ignoring me Dave, you are letting me win people over by your own
> ignorance.  I know because I'm getting the emails and the contracts, your not.
> 
> >       but between your vocabulary impairment, your misunderstanding of basic
> 
> So I'm not the greatest speller and I type slower than my brain works.  No
> one is pertect on their own ... (take a hint) that's why I work with so
> many people, that's why my clients and associate ISP's are so keen to back
> me in whatever ways they can to gain a benefit.
> 
> >issues concerning name space administration and your above use of creative
> 
> I have no misunderstanding of the DNS, I've spent far too long looking at
> it and WHY it's so valuable to IAHC and InterNIC and MelbourneIT. I looked
> at it technically, I asked lots of questions, read lots of RFC's, developed
> lots of code.
> 
> >logic concerning a failure to respond, I'd say that assessing merits based
> 
> I'm flattered by the comment about my creative logic.  It's a clear sign
> you really appreciate my intellectual ability, even if I can't always
> express it 100% accurately.
> 
> I hope you don't find dilexic people offencive or would make the same few
> comments about someone with a minor problem of such.  I know many dislexic
> people who are very brilliant.
> 
> >on facts rather than fantasy is something you would be expected to avoid at
> >all costs.
> 
> But Dave, I'm not the one trying to OWN the DNS and make $10,000 a hit from
> comapnies that won't be refunded.
> 
> So I'm not the one living in a fantasy world.  You are, because you won't
> get $10,000 from me no matter how desparate I am.
> 
> Imagine if Holden never decided to make cars, we'd all drive Fords :-)
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Business Development, Technology Domain Registration and Network Advisory
> Adam Todd                                 Personal http://adamtodd.ah.net
> Phone +61 2 9729 0565                     Network  http://www.ah.net
> 
> AU Root Server Confederation              http://www.aursc.ah.net

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com