Re: Threat from Christopher Ambler

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

John and all,

John Charles Broomfield wrote:

> > > People who continue to use the existing root servers are essentially
> > > delegating their vote in this process to whoever operates that root.
> > > (And I do trust IANA in that regard as long as IANA's choices are
> > > freely made by Jon P. et al without the US Government coming in and
> > > uttering too many "thou shalts".)
> >
> >   Here is yet another fundemental area and idea incorporated within the
> > MoU that is in stark conflict with reason and good managment process.
> > It is also an attitude which breeds the oppisite of which it professes.  That
> > being more regulation, and seperation of powers.
>
> This is the crux of the matter 100%. Karl is completely right when he says
> that people are delegating their vote to whomever operates the root.

  They currently have very few alternatives.  And the ones that are up and
running, are gaining more and more users all the time.  In addition the fact
that NSI, not the IANA operates the Roots to which you refer are arbitrarily
restricting new gTLD's and other registries and registrars form providing
registration service within the existing name space (.com, .net, ,org) is
in stark conflict with the free enterprise system as well as fair trade, when
that capability is now available to anyone to do.  These two reasons are the
primary reasons why are "Delegating" their vote.  If you only have one
candidate, of course you have to delegate your vote.  There is no other
choice.  So I find this statement inconsistent at the least.

> The argument that some come up with is that as there are default files
> pointing to the IANA roots shipped with most DNS software, and as most
> people leave those default files in place, then those people are not really
> making a choice and are having the IANA decisions unwillingly "thrust" upon
> them.

  This is changing all the time, and will continue to do so slowly.  In any event,
this is really not the users doing, rather it is their ISP.

> I disagree vehemently with this type of argument. While it is true that most
> end users (ie, the end customers of ISPs) probably don't know and never will
> anything about how DNS operates, and it is also true that many Mom & Pop
> ISPs don't know how to correctly configure their DNS, I feel that the
> responsability lies precisely (at least at this time) with the ISP.

  FOr half of the responsibility this is true.  The IANA could have and should take

a leadership position to inform these ISP's what alternatives they really have.
That they are not doing truthfully.

> A *VERY* large % of users can be accounted for with the larger ISPs, and
> the larger ISPs, I am *SURE* that they know how to configure their resolvers
> correctly.

  They should indeed.  However they often choose not to do so.  This really
a mystery to me.

> It is these ISPs who have the capacity to "vote with their feet". If they
> are using the IANA roots, it is NOT because they come default, but rather
> because they are happy with them.

  This very well may be true, for now.  We have already seen that this is changing
slowly.  I hope that this change continues.

> The alternative root servers (eDNS, alternic, whatever) would probably be
> well justified to flout around any large organisations that decide to
> delegate to them the choices of DNS.
> When oponents of IANA say "IANA is not legitimate", it makes me wonder what
> these people consider legitimate (only 99%+ of the internet is currently
> delegating root decisions to IANA...).

  What they mean is what I just said above.  The IANA is NOT doing all it
can to provide and encourage a non-monoplistic DNS system.  Therefor using
undo influence in a negative manner for all the Internet users.

> The world currently accepts the IANA roots as they currently are. This means
> that there is a *VERY* strong track record of acceptance for the decisions
> taken by IANA.

  If you only have one choice primarily, of course this will be the outcome.

> The fact that a (noisy) bunch disagrees with those decisions should not be
> allowed to overshadow the high legitimacy that IANA currently has.

  I would agree that the IANA is largely legitimate.  The exception in in matters
dealing with the DNS system.

>
>
> Of course, it's obvious that by the same reasoning above, if you manage to
> get a TLD into the IANA root, then it's instant global visibility, which is
> why there's so much shouting going on (hey, if I can get ".hot-new-tld" into
> the IANA roots, then I'm an instant millionaire if it belongs to me).

  Though this may indeed be the reasoning for other registries and registrars,
such as those that follow the MoU plan, I doubt this is the predominant
reasoning for RSC's and the like.  They want a free enterprise DNS system
which will benefit everyone.

>
>
> If those roots are opened, just ask yourself one question: who benefits?

  Simple answer.  The users and stake holders.

> The answer is very clear. If its done by handing out property of TLDs, then
> the beneficiaries are those who own those TLDs.

  That is assuming a totally non-shared DNS system.  We are not making that
assumption.  Rather a combined shared and non-shared DNS system.

>
>
> Yours, John Broomfield.

 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