Re: Re[5]: [ga-roots] Re[4]: [ga-icann] interesting California lawto consider

[Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, at 11:18 [=GMT-0700], William X. Walsh wrote:

> To follow up on this.
> 
> Three sets of nameservers compromise what appears on just looking to
> be the primary dns servers for 60% or more of the TLDs listed in the
> ORSC roots. (probably more, I stopped looking once it became obvious)
> 
> And those are run by....
> PacificRoot
> VRX.net/Richard Sexton
> Higgs.net/Simon Higgs
> 
> Between them they are responsible for the vast majority of alt.root
> TLDs.

I am not going to calculate this, as this isn't as easy as it may 
seem. Did you try? 

> Further, the primary servers used by all 3 of those sets are also
> serving the root zone, providing no separation at all between root and
> TLD service.  

So what? The same things could (and in part [edu in any case] still
can) be said about the legacy/USG/ICANN root until recently. The
seperation process between root-servers.net and gtld-servers.net there
is not complete yet... (Remember how a.ROOT-servers.net lost the .COM
zone some 10 months ago?)

And what about the ccTLDs? A lot of them use the same servers in
addition to a nameserver in their own country. 

Naturally, the legacy root and gTLDs have more elaborate server
sets than the ORSC. Then they have more SLDs and more users.  

You are right, but you prove nothing.

Marc

> All three are also serving second level delegated zones.
> 
> 2 of those sets are also permitting recursive lookups on those same
> servers.
> 
> I could go on....
> 
> 
> Sunday, June 17, 2001, 11:03:32 AM, William X. Walsh wrote:
> 
> > Hello Marc,
> 
> > Sunday, June 17, 2001, 10:44:10 AM, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> 
> >> On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, at 10:10 [=GMT-0700], William X. Walsh wrote:
> 
> >>> > Some weeks ago, I had a look at most of their websites, and found, that the 
> >>> > majority of them have some more or less stringent requirements concerning 
> >>> > which TLD they would include in their root.
> >>> > You know obviously more than their websites say.
> >>> 
> >>> References please?
> >>> 
> >>> There are no minimum standards or technical requirements at any of the
> >>> alt.roots that I am aware of.  If you know otherwise, please don't
> >>> just say it, point to the references.
> >>> 
> >>> That means that unless someone else, who also didn't meet any minimum
> >>> standards, emailed them that they wanted that string first, you can
> >>> have it, even if you don't know the difference between an MX record
> >>> and a CNAME record, much less how to setup a controlled managed dns
> >>> system for the domain.
> 
> >> This is utter %$#@^& and you know it. You will not get your TLD
> >> included in the ORSC root if there aren't at least two nameservers
> >> correctly answering for it.
> 
> > No, my comments are spot on.  The vast majority of those TLDs use the
> > SAME nameservers.  The actual claimant asks Sexton or one of the
> > other few who DO actually know how to manage DNS to add an SOA record
> > in their dns servers for them.
> 
> > The TINC rules are mostly cosmetic.  They are in no way real minimum
> > technical standards.
> 
> > I can point to a large number of TLDs in the ORSC zone that were
> > "Created" by someone posting to the list asking if someone can add
> > their TLD to their dns for them.
> 
> > You know it, and I know it, so can the BS Marc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
> 

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html