North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Domain Rant
- From: Karl Denninger
- Date: Fri Mar 21 15:48:45 1997
On Fri, Mar 21, 1997 at 11:57:43AM -0800, Vadim Antonov wrote:
> I do not think the domain issue is beyond the scope of NANOG.
> In fact, w/o working DNS the value of services provided by N.A.N.Operators
> is zero. In other words, the domain insanity reached the level where
> it starts to impact the business of ISPs materially.
> In other words, it is in the interest of ISPs to step in and inject some
> sanity into how that vital part of infrastructure is being run.
> ISPs is the only party in the debate which actually has resources and
> enough business sense to make it a workable setup. I strongly suspect that
> "expert groups" and "engineering task forces" have already demonstrated
> their unability to fix the problem.
> Now, to me it looks like CIDR movie rerun.
The problem is, who are the "ISPs" involved in this whole thing?
A half-dozen national megacorporations? No.
The 2,000+ ISPs in the US who actually connect customers to the Internet?
What do THEY want? Choice, quality of service, and happy customers.
One of *OUR* domains (MCS.COM) was wrongly terminated the other day.
They still claim we haven't paid. We claim we have, and have
cancelled checks to prove it. We dispute who has paid for what
period of time. Fine and well. Except for one problem.
They never invoiced us.
They have turned it back on after much shouting from our accounting
department, pending us receiving something which commercially passes
as an invoice so that a real investigation of who has paid for what
can be figured out.
How do you dispute a bill you never received? You don't.
How do you possibly validate using *EMAIL* for invoices without prior
consent (ie: by default), as NSI does? The obvious reason for this is
avoiding the cost of running it through the postage meter at 32 cents
a crack, but heh, if I have to do that to invoice my customers in a
legitimate format, why not NSI?
Email, especially email without a digital signature affixed, is too
easily spoofed to be commercially acceptable for this kind of thing.
I don't pay off email bills, because there is no documentation and
no paper trail.
If audited, guess what -- I have to produce that paper.
Now let's look at the alternatives to the current mess:
1) IAHC - Nice concept, but troublesome in many areas. Jurisdictional,
regulatory, due process, all kinds of problems. Unknown costs at
the CORE level, unknown budgets, single-model.
The worst problem is that if it sucks we can't "go around" it as
the Internet has always done. Why? Because it is claimed to be
the only model which will exist AND THERE ARE PEOPLE TRYING TO MAKE
IT THAT WAY BY FORCE THROUGH TREATY PROCEEDINGS. Further, I don't
believe they CAN force NSI to play, or that NSI will voluntarily --
and believe that NSI's recent press release backs up that view --
but that's the claim.
Costs? $20,000 to play in the lottery, plus $500,000 in hard assets
or a credit line for same. This is a "big business" approach to the
problem, and directly opposite how the net has been built from the
2) eDNS - Open. Consensual. Multi-business-model based. Build it
and they will come (ie: how the net got where it is today).
Operates on the principle that the policy of the root is to prevent
market concentration (ie: monopoly) and collisions between TLDs, and
nothing more. The IAHC model and their TLDs (other than WEB and
ARTS, which someone claimed first) are welcome. The NSI model is
welcome. Alternic is welcome. Any other model, including a Freenet
who wants to run a registry, is welcome. Lots of choices for
jurisdiction under which registrants can select from. Lots of
business models to choose from. Lots of different prices to be
charged, and different levels of service assurance available for
the fees assessed. Due process as allowed or mandated by the laws
governing the registry in question. Fixed (zero) costs at the
root, fixed (zero) budgets.
$0 to play; based on rough consensus, working code, and a published
policy for the world to view and evaluate *on its own*.
Which model SHOULD win?
If you pick or support the IAHC model, then you had better be right -- because
the alternative is that the world collapses.
If you pick the eDNS model, you don't have to be right -- in fact, you don't
have to take a position on the "right" model. eDNS supports all business
models, and believes that the "right" ones will survive *on their own*
without coercion being applied.
I think the choices are obvious, and the people who support the "fixed
model" rather transparent with their motivations.
But of course, that's just my opinion.
I've said my peace on this. Anyone on the "other side" who feels compelled
to get in the last word is welcome to do so. Those who want more
information can get it through the web page below.
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| eDNS - The free-market solution
http://www.edns.net/ | firstname.lastname@example.org
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -