Re: Threat from Christopher Ambler

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

Kent and all,

  FIrst of all, after reading this comment/reply, I must say that, Kent, you should
follow the advise written in your own SIG file.  >;)

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 19, 1998 at 07:39:20PM -0500, Paul Svensson wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >
> > >At 12:01 PM 2/19/98 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > >>situations where there are multiple claimants to a particular TLD the
> > >>choices are presented to the system administrator who can decide, using
> > >
> > >does it not bother anyone, just a tad, that who you get will depend upon
> > >which server you are using?
> >
> > It used to bother me, and really gave me a feeling of predictable failure
> > when IAHC picked .web as one of their choice TLDs; but really, when looking
> > at the big picture, I don't see any compelling reason to be all that bothered,
> >
> >         because _I_ get to pick which server I'm using.
>
> But this is immaterial.  You have always had that option, though you
> have not exercised it.  The real difference is expressed in the
> following question, which is the one that Dave should have asked:
>
>     Would it not bother you if a large majority of the other users of
>     the net could not see YOUR domain?

  Of course the answer is yes.

>
>
> The fact is that essentially all domain name holders answer this
> question "yes!".  A domain that is not universally visible is
> essentially worthless.
>
> It is this fact that drives domain name market dynamics.  A bunch of
> renegade geeks pointing at alternate servers doesn't change things one
> whit.  GRS, eDNS, RSCs, and AlterNIC are all equivalent -- they are
> immaterial playthings.  The only TLDs that matter are those that
> essentially everyone can see.  And, until a majority of the
> nameservers on the net use the GRS, it adds absolutely to the
> equation.

  GRS should be either made a standard or the IANA/ISOC/MoU/RSC's
should look towards a interim solution such as either the MoU giving up the
.web gTLD or going toa shared Root configuration.  However I doubt that
the former is likely in that the MoU folks are so intractable and uncooperative.
And as such, are poor examples of leadership.

>
>
> So the question is, then, is there any realistic chance that the
> majority of the nameservers on the globe are going to convert to GRS
> anytime soon?  It seems fairly clear that the answer to this question
> is "no".

  I unfortunately agree.  This is mainly due to the fact that cooperation of the
IANA/ISOC/MoU/RSC's still isn't there.  Dam shame really.  :(

>
>
> [...]
>
> > Obviously, TLD's with only one strong claimant get a market advantage;
> > think of it as a natural incentive to conflict resolution.
>
> The fact is, you are essentially advocating the status quo: a lunatic
> fringe with "alternate" TLDs, and NSI in control of the real
> registries.

  I don't see his logic in this way, Kent.  But than again he is most likely
assuming that
the MoU leadership is good leadership.  And that is definatly in great doubt.

>
>
> BTW, speaking of lunatic fringes, I have just this minute started the
> ".kjc" registry:
>
> ZB/etc/namedb[62]nslookup bywater.kjc
> Server:  songbird.com
> Address:  206.14.4.2
>
> Name:    bywater.kjc
> Address:  206.14.4.2
>
> Be the first on your block to get a domain in this dynamic new
> registry!
>
> Oh, back to the original thread -- Ambler's threatening letter.
> Unfortunately, if Chris indeed wrote this he has gone completely off
> the deep end -- it's so silly I have to believe it is a forgery.
> Even if 1) the Green Paper is implemented exactly as is, and 2)
> IODesign gets to be operator of the .web registry, there is no way that
> IODesign will retain ownership of the .web name.  All TLDs will remain
> under control and "ownership" of the new IANA, and if anyone were to
> write letters, it would be the new IANA.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin, PAB Chair                 "No reason to get excited",
> kent@songbird.com                       the thief he kindly spoke...
> PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
> http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
>
> --
> DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <listserv@lists.internic.net>
> To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY"
> For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"


Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com