North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: how many roots must DNS have before it's considered broken (Re: ISP network design of non-authoritative caches)
- From: Adrian Chadd
- Date: Mon Nov 19 11:25:30 2001
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> I agree with all of this, but the issue is moot in my book: Since ICANN
> felt the need to either own the world or break it, I went elsewhere. So
> did a LOT of others. Look at the mass exodus from NS/Verisign - same
> issues. IMNSHO, ICANN cares not a rats a@@ about the internet, they are
> only interested in the money and the power. That makes their
> "positions" totally meaningless to me, and a lot of others who feel the
> same way.
You know, I'm sick of hearing that some particular part of the
internet "governance" (be it ICANN, ARIN, AuDA, APNIC..) is
corrupt, doesn't give a rats ass about the internet, cares about
money, power ..
Hey. If you were in their position,
* what would you have had to do to get there,
* what would you have to do to stay there, and
* what would you do to make it work reasonably well?
Helllllooo! Money is involved. Of course in a capitalist setup you're
going to feel this way. The wealth isn't "evenly spread enough".
Just like any other mega-monopolostic-guaranteed-income organisation.
(Personally, I wish to all hell that part of the DNS registration fees
still went to "research funds" like they were _supposed_ to way back
Do you want to change it?
* write/adapt an existing directory technology to replace the really
stupid flat namespace DNS has become
* write a plugin for IE
* write modules for the other popular browsers (w3m, links, lynx,
netscape/mozilla, perhaps even Opera if you can figure it out..)
* don't turn it into a bloody private thing - open source the software,
write the protocol documentation, encourage other people to work
on collectively making it better.
* Come back to the internet community with it. :)
The new.net guys, even though I (a) don't wish to bring them up
in polite NANOG conversation and (b) don't agree with what they
were trying to do with the DNS space at -LEAST- attempted to
gather momentum by end-user adoption/acceptance.
It doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be "catchy".
Adrian Chadd "Auntie Em, Hate you. Hate Kansas.
<email@example.com> Taking the dog."