North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
omnibus Domain Rant
- From: Paul A Vixie
- Date: Fri Mar 21 17:48:05 1997
Here's your chance. You've been complaining about this thread. Hit D now.
> There has already been one Sherman Act related lawsuit filed. Collude with
> others and RICO gets added to the mix.
You must be referring to http://namespace.autono.net/ns./litigation_cont.html.
I'm not a judge or jury or even a lawyer, but this suit looks pretty weak to
me -- eventually GSA would have to be named as a codefendant and that's not
going to work. This too, shall pass.
>> Giving me money is no guarantee of polite treatment. I do the right thing,
>> money or no money. The funny thing is, people keep giving me money anyway.
>A slight correction: You do what *you think* is the right thing.
The difference only matters if you don't trust your own judgement or you
accept a higher moral authority than yourself. In the case of DNS I have
subjected my moral judgement to the review of people I respect, and have
honed it according to the feedback. I'm not aware of a higher authority.
>What's necessary is preventing the elimination of free market selection.
And I suppose that we ought to allow the free market to allocate radio
frequency spectrum as well. And if you don't like the TV station that is
now broadcasting where the CB radios you've been selling also operate, then
I guess the market just got less free. And if you don't like the fact that
your phone number has been allocated to other people by several local phone
companies, then I guess one of those phone companies will achieve some kind
of ascendancy and the ones who "mis-"allocated "your" phone numbers will
eventually stop doing that or go out of business.
In this crowd I'm probably the expert on economic theory, weak though I am
on the subject. And a free market requires some basic rules. Unique spectrum
allocations backed by the force of law don't constrain the size of the market
or its freedom, in fact it is the only way to prevent monopoly forces from
squeezing out the little guy. The so-called eDNS allocation scheme is not
workable for at least two reasons: someone else will start pDNS and allocate
from _their_ version of "." if they think they can "compete"; and, the second
level players are not required to cooperate for the greater good of the end
We have a coherent "." right now, and we're going to continue to have one, and
its owners will be subject to the rule of law and to the administration of
representatives of the user population. Right now that's IETF/IANA. In the
future it will be IAHC/CORE/etc. eDNS does not qualify and is a nonstarter.
>Can you point me to a nice summary of the IAHC proposal? And your plan for
>things if it stalls?
http://www.iahc.org/ has their proposal, as well as background materials like
searchable mailing list archives and some historical documents.
My plan for things if IAHC stalls is to call folks I know at the various
large ISP's and say "if you think ARIN was a good idea, you ain't seen nothin'
yet". Ultimately the people who own the gold, make the rules. In civilized
countries, everything happens through a government agency who owns the ISO3166
two-letter country code top level domain, and they ignore all of this three-
letter silliness. In the US, the government ignores everything we do and we
all seem strangely pleased by this, and we hardly use .US at all, preferring
to pollute the worldwide name space with our petty desires for short names.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -