RE: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

John is sandbagging everyone here. He's been involved at least 4 years,
maybe six. Check NSI DOMAIN-POLICY archives.

John, quit playing around and get serious.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Charles Broomfield [mailto:jbroom@manta.outremer.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 8:31 PM
> To: idno@tallship.net
> Cc: jbroom@manta.outremer.com; rmeyer@mhsc.com; ga_chair@hotmail.com;
> ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Death Struggle in Name Space
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Bradley,
> 	Thanks for all those nice pointers in the right 
> direction. I really
> needed them. I'll make a note of checking the O'reilly book. 
> Just new around
> here. Also thanks for all of your lessons. If you'll forward me your
> consulting rates for formation I'll have a look at them.
> 
> > > So, if I understand you correctly, the ICANN action of 
> adding ".biz" to their
> > > root-zone actually messes up the way that you later add to to it.
> > 
> > No, it wouldn't 'mess' anything up with us technically or 
> operationally
> > from the standpoint of The PacificRoot rootzone. The ICANN 
> .BIZ simply
> > couldn't make the muster because there is a pre-existing 
> TLD string in 
> > the rootzone (The authorized one if you must have it that way) that
> > belongs to ARNI.
> 
> Then as it's not a problem and ICANN is not playing with your 
> rules (naughty
> ICANN), you will just drop the ICANN ".biz", won't you (note 
> to self: please
> add the paragraph to my "words that the author will eat" file)
> 
> (...)
> > So no, the foundation of The PacificRoot's rootzone is not 
> the ICANN root,
> > but rather, The PacificRoot's root servers. Everything else is built
> > around that. ICANN's root is really for the most part a 
> non-issue wrt
> > building our rootzone, we merely include their operational, 
> non-colliding
> > TLDs.
> 
> I love it when managers of non-ICANN alternative roots keep 
> insisting that
> they get their information from independent sources, and that 
> they are not
> starting out from the legacy/ICANN/USG roots and adding to 
> it. I also love
> it when to date I have NEVER had a single request to also update an
> alternative root instead of updating the legacy roots, 
> despite this hand
> shaking about getting information from alternative sources...
> 
> > > Interesting concept that you decide to use the USG 
> authoritative as long as
> > > it doesn't change, but if it DOES change, then you scream 
> about it.
> > um.... no.
> 
> Then why are you so bothered about ".biz"? If it was not such a hassle
> and just someone wanting to add something in a rogue manner 
> (as you seem to
> imply), then you'd have already indicated that they would be 
> ignored by you,
> and that would be the end of it.
> 
> (aprox .5% of the net can actually see a ".biz today. A small 
> % of that .5%
> has actually ever typed in a .biz -my guess is that updating SOAs and
> secondaries actually accounts for most of the traffic!-, and 
> a small % of
> that small % of .5% has actually ever done anything 
> meaningful to date with
> a .biz -apart from selling them- [selling air?] )
> 
> > um..... :) that's a big number when you start adding all those zeros
> > behind it ;) And if it breaks things - it's everyone on the 
> planet that is
> > potentially effected.
> 
> Yes, potentially everyone is affected if I squash a bug tomorrow as
> *potentially* everyone could have seen it (butterflies in NY causing
> hurricanes in India, etc...). In practical terms, the only 
> adverse effect of
> the ICANN ".biz" addition is that the non-ICANN ".biz" seller finds
> themselves in exactly the pickle that everyone has been 
> pointing out for
> around 6 years now (ie, doing something rogue and 
> unsanctioned won't give
> you any advantage whatsoever WRT the same thing in the legacy 
> roots, and
> might in fact make you look a bit silly).
> 
> > > step further, this would then only REALLY affect those 
> people who actually
> > > use a domain name under ".biz" which is visible through 
> those alternative
> > No, both sides of the fence.
> 
> Not really... Those claims of incredible potential relative 
> growth (as far
> as visibility), have proven for the past 5-6 years to be just that:
> incredible. Most people today can't see .earth, .web or .biz 
> and never will
> see the non-ICANN version. For all PRACTICAL purposes they 
> don't really
> exist. I define practical as something that you can actually 
> USE. You can't
> SERIOUSLY try and promote your .biz/.earth/.web domain today. Nobody
> exlusively uses a XXX@YYY.biz email address to be reached, etc...
> So, the side of the fence not using .biz today (which is the 
> vast majority,
> not just 99.5% , but of the remaining .5% most of them don't 
> even know/care
> that the "other" .biz is there), so in practice NOBODY is going to be
> affected by this DIRECTLY. Indirectly however, it is going to 
> be that much
> harder to continue justifying the existance of the non-legacy 
> roots (apart
> from on a hobbyist/fun basis. which in all honesty is all 
> that it is today
> anyway).
> 
> > > actually on an operational basis (I defy ANYONE to show 
> me someone that will
> > > really be affected by the introduction of ".biz" into the 
> USG/ICANN roots,
> > http://www.icbtollfree.com/article.cfm?articleId=5146 will 
> lead you to a
> > long list of people that will be happy to engage your defiance.
> 
> Sorry, I redefine my defiance as to wanting to be shown a
> living/working/running example of a meaningful zone in use 
> today which uses
> ".biz" as a primary (or very important) means of contact. 
> Come on, give us
> some numbers (like how many hits for a MAJOR ".biz" site, or 
> how much email
> destination ".biz", or how many DNS lookups of ".biz" TLD 
> -non secondary zone
> transfer in there please, or calculate on average how much of 
> that data is
> due to secondaries refreshing themselves).
> 
> > And when your friends and family give you email addresses 
> that bounce on
> > you it is you who will suffer, because it just made sense 
> to them and all
> > their other friends and relatives can now take advantage of the
> > availabilty of short, meaningful, and inexpensive domain 
> names free from
> > arbitrary theft by ICANN.
> 
> Yes, you can use non-ICANN domain names today. You could also 
> use them last
> year, and also 5 years ago (how long have you been running 
> your own .web
> Chris? When was .per started?).
> 6 years on, and we still haven't seen the landslide of people 
> rushing to get
> NON-legacy email addresses. 6 years is a long time in 
> Internet time, so your
> wishes are still that.
> 
> > You still use punched cards and mag tape John Charles?
> 
> No, but I've also seen my share of vaporware technologies that would
> dominate the world and be the best thing since sliced bread. 
> I think it
> wouldn't be unfair to compare your hopes to those of the 
> people pushing
> Esperanto (except that even they seem to have a wider user base...)
> Btw, mag tape is used today far more often than non-legacy domains.
> 
> > ICANN is not authoritative for a zone - a nameserver is. A 
> nameserver is a
> > machine, and ICANN is a bunch of drycleaned, pressed, unelected, and
> > larcenous collusion artists. There is a big difference. One 
> will answer
> > True or False - can you tell which one?
> 
> Semantics. The authority of a zone does not lie with a 
> machine. It is not
> the machine which chooses what is in its files. It's human beings that
> decide what to put in their files. ICANN is authoritative for their
> root-zone. Not A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET . The machine is just a 
> slave that runs
> software.
> 
> > Nonsense. there is but one name space. The PacificRoot 
> merely points to
> > the nameservers that are auth for all Known, non-colliding, and 
> > operational TLDs on the Planet.
> > 
> > The difficulty you are having is in the definition of "What is a
> > Collider?"
> 
> Not at all. Collision in namespace by definition is when we 
> have conflicting
> information about a certain zone. There are collisions all 
> the time when
> people switch their SLD zone from one provider to another, 
> fail to reflect
> that with the old provider and have the maintainers of their 
> TLD reflect the
> new data (the old provider gets left out in the cold).
> What you are saying is that you will not leave out in the 
> cold your current
> non-ICANN ".biz" and that you will thumb your nose at the 
> ICANN version of
> it when it materializes. Famous last words.
> 
> > Machines are authoritative for zones not companies. Please 
> take the time
> > to educate yourself before using incorrect terminology that must
> > continually be corrected. You are almost not making sense. 
> 
> No. People/entities/companies are authoritative in the end. 
> Machines just
> run software that those people put in it. You might aswell 
> say that the end
> users modem is authoritative because that's what is telling 
> his computer
> the DNS data that he requested. You are being too short-sighted.
> 
> > > At the base of it, there can only be ONE authoritative 
> root-zone. You say
> > Wrong. There can only be one name space. Duplicate strings means
> > collisions. There "ARE" "MANY" authoritative rootzones pointing to
> > authoritative TLD zones pointing to authoritative SLD zones 
> pointing to
> > authoritative 3LD zones etc...
> 
> Let me correct my phrase to:
> In *practical* terms, there is only ONE authoritative root-zone.
> Today that root-zone is the legacy/USG/ICANN/IANA root-zone 
> (call it what
> you want).
> True, there are many people who setup rootzones to play with 
> them (some play
> more than others), but for all practical applications they 
> are not used (at
> least not in their non-legacy capacity anyway).
> 
> Yours, John Broomfield.
> 
> P.S. For those that are new on the scene, but most of the 
> oldies knew it
> anyway, the first paragraph in my message is 100% JCB sarcasm.
> 
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html