Re: IANA: Why Trademarks? (was Re: Emergent Press Conference)

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

Jim and all,

Jim Dixon wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> 
> > >bizarre.  By "legacy" I assume that you mean the existing real-world
> > >situation, the domain name system with the root name servers at
> > >its core (the root name servers being {a-m}.root-servers.net), with
> >
> > Legacy = NSI plus Boeing plus largely US government players, plus
> > the 196 or so other registrars.  NSI isn't going away, has large scale
> > assets, enjoys substantial commercial support and is likely to command
> > most of the market share.
> 
> The domain name system consists of tens of thousands of name servers,
> a couple of hundred TLD name servers, and the baker's dozen of root
> name servers.  These machines cooperate on a voluntary basis to produce
> the DNS as we know it.

  Very true.  However you have left out the few RSC's name servers
that are out there and the few ISP's that reconize them.
> 
> > >IANA making the basic decisions about what TLDs should be in the
> >
> > IANA is both a DISA function contracted to USC and what Jon
> > calls himself as an ISOC trustee.  These are probably in the
> > process of separating into two discrete identities.  The notion
> > that he has the absolute authority to order anything is
> > a delusion as long as he is functioning as government contractor
> > employee.  However, this isn't relevant.  It's the DNS administrators
> > and software vendors who establish the resulting arrangements.
> 
> The operators of the name servers, which means in large part the world's
> ISPs, use IANA to coordinate the DNS.  There is little chance that this
> will change in the near future.  When US government funding ends,
> funding from the NICs and other concerned bodies will continue.

  It is true the the vast majority of ISP's do recognize the IANA to
coordinate the DNS system on the whole.  I don't agree that this will
continue in the near future however.  It is likely that the IANA will
play a strong role here, but not a dominate one.  Just simply cannot
do so with the growth in the Internet that is occuring and still 
maintain a healthy DNS system.
> 

- snip -

> 
> If the operators of the root name servers were in disarray, everyone
> would notice: the Internet would be in chaos.  If or when CORE starts
> running, it will just slot into the existing system unnoticed.

  And short term chaos has already occured twice in this year alone.
Previewes of comming attractions?  
> 
> > >Then there are the "confederations".  Despite all the fuss, few ISPs
> > >know or care about these.  The larger ISPs do: with no exceptions
> > >that I know of, they oppose them.
> >
> > But they enjoy significant enough support that many if not most DNS
> > administrators will point to them if they coalesce into one group -
> > which they now appear to be doing.

  This would be helpful if it were true.  But it isn't.
> 
> I know of no ISP that has the slightest intention of pointing their
> name servers at anything other than the root name servers.

  You should know this is false.  I myself have pointed out two
ISP's that point to both alternitive Root servers and the IANA's
Root.  Soon there will be two more.

>  I am sure
> that some must exist; in particular I am assured that they exist in
> Australia, because of the peculiar conditions there.  Monopolistic
> practices elsewhere may produce other anomolies.  But without the
> cooperation of the ISPs as a whole, there will be no change.  And I
> meet with ISPs from all across Europe and I go to meetings in North
> America, and I have never heard anyone say anything favorable about
> the various alternative root server plans.

  Either you have not been listening or this is a false statment.

>  Nor for that matter have
> I read any realistic plan for replacing or supplementing the 13 root
> name servers, one that involves more than a lot of waving of hands
> when it comes to the details.

  The IESG already has several plans befor it.  Do your homework a bit
better.
> 
> If all the alternative plans that I am aware of coalesced into one,
> it would make no difference in the level of support from ISPs.

  Possibly true.  But that remains to be seen.
> 
> What signs are there of such coalescing occurring?
> 
> > So you end up with three concurrent factions.  Not only is no harm done,
> > but the Internet is not under one "king" and different constituencies
> > are addressed.  Not bad - and certainly more cohesive than was the
> > state of the Matrix just a few years ago.
> 
> There aren't three factions.  There is the status quo.  If and when CORE
> begins operating they will slide into the status quo without a ripple.

  Well of ccourse you are predisposed to think this now, eh Jimmy? >;)

> Then there are the various alternative root name server proposals, none
> of which has any significant support and whose introduction would be
> enormously disruptive.

  Well the gTLD-MoU doesn't have enormous support either.  As to
disruptive,
again this doesn't have to be the case if all parties agree to cooperate
and coordinate.  But the MOUvment (Read bowl movement), doesn't seem
to want to cooperate.  And that is where the "Disruption" will center
itself if it does occur.

> 
> If you are talking about the registry business, a small part of the DNS,
> then what you are saying makes more sense.  But even there there are two
> obvious camps: those who accept the root name servers as authoritative
> and those who don't.

  It is not that black and white, Jimmy.  >;)  Unless the MOUvment
(Read bowl movement), wishes to be uncooperative as to cause a 
interoperability problem.  
> 
> NSI and the national TLD registries fall in the first camp, as do CORE.
> 
> Various tiny factions reject the authority of the root name servers.
> Nowhere, except possibly Australia, do they command any significant
> resources or any significant support.

  I would agree that this is true for now.  WIll it remain so?  Only
the market forces will determine this in the final analysis.
> 
> What many of the MOUvement's bitter opponents fail to realize is that
> they can't create a realistic alternative to CORE unless they accept
> the root name servers.

  This is of course true.  However I would point out that the same 
groups have the right, in the US anyway, to be included, as they 
along with every other US tax payer paid for it.  >;)  Not to mention
that the telcom act of 1996 required it!  >;)

>  If what you propose involves a major change
> in the role of the root name servers, you will immediately be opposed
> by everyone concerned with the smooth operation of the Internet, including
> the ISPs and governments.  That is, you are doomed from the start.  On
> the other hand, if you propose a better CORE or if you propose to modify
> CORE to make it run better, people may listen with interest.

  The latter is exactly what what you call tha opponants do wish to
do.  >;)
> 
> --
> Jim Dixon                                                 Managing Director
> VBCnet GB Ltd                http://www.vbc.net        tel +44 117 929 1316
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Member of Council                                                 President
> Internet Services Providers Association                       EuroISPA EEIG
> http://www.ispa.org.uk                              http://www.euroispa.org
> tel +44 171 976 0679                                     tel +32 2 503 2265
> 

Regards,

-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. (Soon to be INEG. INC) Stay tunned! 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com

Wisdom:   "One who knows others is wise,
           one who knows himself is enlightened."
           Lao Tzu