From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #52 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Monday, March 20 2000 Volume 01 : Number 052 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 19:30:46 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] whois - opperational issues && new gTLDs As far as IOD's .web registry goes, I have to agree with John here. My personal take on this is to rely upon registrar cooperation in the short term, but segue to registry action unless the process is complete in a known amount of time. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - -----Original Message----- From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of John Charles Broomfield Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 3:44 PM To: Rick H Wesson Cc: wg-c@dnso.org Subject: Re: [wg-c] whois - opperational issues && new gTLDs > I know some folks don't like how the whois got distributed when NSI > Registry went into "shaired" mode. > > How do folks propose the whois service to work with additional registraies > running new gTLDs. > -rick As far as I'm concerned, the registry database should contain enough data to allow a registrant transfer from one registrar to another without any co-operation from the first registrar. It should contain enough data to be able to realistically identify the registrant. In other words, if a registrar dies uncooperatively, it should not be catastrophic for those registrants that chose it. heavy-registry/thin-registrar would be my choice as a model, much like what happens with AFNIC (for .fr) or nominet (for .uk) as opposed to what happens with NSI (for .com). Yours, John Broomfield. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 19:48:19 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 20-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: >>they must be this way. BTW, can you please point the exact IAB technical >>constraints you mean? They don't seem to exist. > > > > Yes, Internet Drafts are difficult to find. So few people know about them > or use them and they aren't even mentioned on the IETF home page, except in > the same size type as everything else there... > Nice try, but please, try again. This only deals with an IAB position on the existance of multiple root server networks and their use. I kind of thought you might be trying to use this one. It has no applicability to the discussion of shared/non-shared registries. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE41Z+D8zLmV94Pz+IRAgWDAKDF6y9slynnfIXx3dAe5qTcYR6M2QCaAzT4 4yUYUSYgW0nXXSVZsqI/FwM= =Ac5Q - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 19:59:39 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs At 07:48 PM 3/19/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: >On 20-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: > > > >Nice try, but please, try again. This only deals with an IAB position on the >existance of multiple root server networks and their use. From the I-D: >2.1. Maintenance of a Common Symbol Set ... > Since the DNS is hierarchically structured into domains, the > uniqueness requirement for DNS names in their entirety implies that > each of the names (sub-domains) defined within a domain has a unique > meaning (i.e. set of DNS records) within that domain. This is as > true for the root domain as for any other DNS domain. The > requirement for uniqueness within a domain further implies that there > be some mechanism to prevent name conflicts within a domain. In DNS > this is accomplished by assigning a single owner or maintainer to > every domain, including the root domain, who is responsible for... There's more relevant text, but the above should suffice. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 20:09:14 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 20-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: > At 07:48 PM 3/19/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: >>On 20-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: >> > >> >>Nice try, but please, try again. This only deals with an IAB position on >>the >>existance of multiple root server networks and their use. > > > From the I-D: > >>2.1. Maintenance of a Common Symbol Set > ... >> Since the DNS is hierarchically structured into domains, the >> uniqueness requirement for DNS names in their entirety implies that >> each of the names (sub-domains) defined within a domain has a unique >> meaning (i.e. set of DNS records) within that domain. This is as >> true for the root domain as for any other DNS domain. The >> requirement for uniqueness within a domain further implies that there >> be some mechanism to prevent name conflicts within a domain. In DNS >> this is accomplished by assigning a single owner or maintainer to >> every domain, including the root domain, who is responsible for... > > There's more relevant text, but the above should suffice. > How about a straight answer, Dave. How does this apply to the discussion of the shared/non-shared registry subject? I see nothing in that paragraph or ANYWHERE else in the document that has any relevance at all. I think you are trying to pull something out of the hat that just isn't there. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE41aRq8zLmV94Pz+IRApWKAJ9kWcidY2YjzaQLyxx/1iR4BQckaQCg6TXd dlaUHq8WT7G3pUXzylRHfNk= =XZHu - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 23:10:08 -0500 From: "Milton Mueller" Subject: [wg-c] A plea Two items: 1. As a matter of courtesy, can group members make an effort to respect the two posts per day limit? Volume is increasing with no corresponding increase in progress or consensus. 2. The word "shared" does not have an "i" in it. - -- m i l t o n m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u syracuse university http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 20:24:55 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs At 08:09 PM 3/19/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: >On 20-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: > > At 07:48 PM 3/19/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: > >>On 20-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: > >> > > > >How about a straight answer, Dave. How does this apply to the discussion >of the >shared/non-shared registry subject? I see nothing in that paragraph or >ANYWHERE else in the document that has any relevance at all. The document highlights the need for coherent (unified, centralized, etc.) management. At base that means it does not have a collaborative, shared scheme but rests management of each node (domain) with a single administration >I think you are trying to pull something out of the hat that just isn't there. I note that you have yet to provide a simple, straightforward answer to the original, simple, straightforward question I posed to you about your own assertion. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 20:33:39 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 20-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: > At 08:09 PM 3/19/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: >>On 20-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: >> > At 07:48 PM 3/19/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: >> >>On 20-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: >> >> > >> >> >>How about a straight answer, Dave. How does this apply to the discussion >>of the >>shared/non-shared registry subject? I see nothing in that paragraph or >>ANYWHERE else in the document that has any relevance at all. > > The document highlights the need for coherent (unified, centralized, etc.) > management. At base that means it does not have a collaborative, shared > scheme but rests management of each node (domain) with a single > administration Dave, the document is very specific in discussing the impact of multiple roots vs a single root. This has absolutely nothing to do with non-shared gTLDs. You are still grasping here. Please, a simple answer, what in this document applies to the shared/non-shared TLD discussion underway currently. If it doesn't have any, please just say it so that we can put this to rest. I see no "technical constraints" to the existance and creation of multiple non-shared and shared registries coexisting and competing in the domain name registration services area. And I see nothing in the IAB document that states that there are any. > >>I think you are trying to pull something out of the hat that just isn't >>there. > > I note that you have yet to provide a simple, straightforward answer to the > original, simple, straightforward question I posed to you about your own > assertion. About what assertion, Dave? That there is no "technical constraint" that mandates shared registries? I think that statements speaks for itself. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE41aoj8zLmV94Pz+IRAkMnAJ4qpD6jn+wevlAHi8kqGit9m+QOvwCgmR8O jRiHu790mEJ9dj+WmqvPeoQ= =MRBk - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 20:49:41 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs Folks, I do apologize for the protracted exchange, long past the daily limit. However it was necessary to find out whether constructive exchange was possible or whether some sort of game was afoot. Only William's truly diligent effort permitted the exchange to continue so long. So, William goes back on the filter list, since it seems the best way to avoid the proffered distractions. d/ At 08:33 PM 3/19/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: >On 20-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: > > At 08:09 PM 3/19/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: > >>On 20-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: > >> > At 07:48 PM 3/19/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: > >> >>On 20-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: > > The document highlights the need for coherent (unified, centralized, etc.) > > management. At base that means it does not have a collaborative, shared > > scheme but rests management of each node (domain) with a single > > administration > >Dave, the document is very specific in discussing the impact of multiple roots >vs a single root. This has absolutely nothing to do with non-shared gTLDs. >... > >>I think you are trying to pull something out of the hat that just isn't > >>there. > > I note that you have yet to provide a simple, straightforward answer to > the > > original, simple, straightforward question I posed to you about your own > > assertion. >About what assertion, Dave? That there is no "technical constraint" that >mandates shared registries? > >I think that statements speaks for itself. =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 21:33:52 -0800 (PST) From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs > > As for "very shaky legal ground", as I see it, ICANN has already walked > > out to the end of the plank of "monopoly" in that it is acting as an > > arbiter of who may and who may not participate in de facto dominant root > > system. > > I don't see it the same way Karl. We are obviously going to have to agree to disagree and see how the other members of the WG decide. I would suggest that between us we've set forth the two sides reasonably completely. (And besides, we've each reached our two-emails limit for today. ;-) As a point of clarification, I am proposing diversity of operators for at least until we have reached some arbitrary, but non-trivial threshhold, let's say 100, new TLDs. I would like to point out that there has been mention on this thread of IETF/IAB imposed requirements. I fail to perceive any that are relevant to this particular question, expecially as diversity of TLD operators is a policy matter that, to my my mind, is devoid of any technical issues. --karl-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 100 23:43:57 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: your mail > I cannot see a situation where the current 8-year contract that NSI > has could be broken, nor can I see a situation in which it would be > proper. I agree with Chris completely (arghhh! am I sick!???? ;-) ). > Put .org and .net aside, and create new registries that get the same > treatment as .com and give .com some serious competition. Hmmm, not sure I agree with you entirely there (ahhhh, that feels better :-P ) As you state initially, NSI has managed to get itself a pretty airtight contract for com/net/org which is for all practical purposes unbreakable. That contract must be understood with the light that it was created, in that NSI agreed to sharing the registry as long as it got pretty good guarantees for hanging onto the cash for a long while. It was probably an agreement unfairly tilted in NSI's favour, but realistically any further concessions from NSI would have had to be wrenched out through a court of law and through long and painful proceedings, resulting probably in a much longer term because of those proceedings, without counting on the threat of disruption of operations to the internet. In any case, we are talking about conditions that legacy TLDs have. Legacy TLDs, precisely because they ARE legacy TLDs, come with baggage. One of the things that this whole process has achieved has been a certain evolution of com/net/org, which now has a known target for full openness (a competitive bid for running the registry). Personally I believe that setting up and running TODAY any *NEW* gTLD under the same handicaps that any existing TLDs are being run is NOT being fair, but rather being backwards and unfair. Of course, any entity wanting to be a registry will want to claim as many advantages as possible and draw as many comparisons with existing TLDs as possible. > Give each new registry 1 TLD to start as a testbed, prove that it > works and is not harmful to the Internet (gee, I can't believe I > said that, according to someone else I don't care about that). > Once the testbed is over, offer new registries positions in up to > 3 TLDs if you like to create equality. Frankly, I don't see that > as making much sense, but what do I know? I believe that this would be rather similar to starting the house with the roof. Your position "choose the registries" and then get them to choose what they want to run results in a situation in that what exists is there because those registries have chosen it to be so, in other words, the situation would be a product of the will of the registries. The position "choose the TLDs" creates a situation where the entities running the registry are just filling in an operational need, in other words, it is much less unlikely for us to wind up in a situation favourable to the registries just for the heck of it. Yours, John Broomfield. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 22:23:14 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Re: your mail >I believe that this would be rather similar to starting the house with the >roof. Your position "choose the registries" and then get them to choose what >they want to run results in a situation in that what exists is there because >those registries have chosen it to be so, in other words, the situation >would be a product of the will of the registries. The position "choose the >TLDs" creates a situation where the entities running the registry are just >filling in an operational need, in other words, it is much less unlikely for >us to wind up in a situation favourable to the registries just for the heck >of it. Okay, I'll accept your position, though I don't agree completely. As a middle-ground, then, I'd suggest that they go hand-in-hand. When a registry steps up and says, "We meet the objective criteria ICANN has set down," they also specify the TLD that they intend to run, state any information that is relevant, and perhaps give a charter for it, should it be decided that charters are part of the procedure. But if I say registry then TLD, and you say TLD and then registry, then I see a compromise in saying both at the same time. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 100 00:00:18 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs > On 19-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: > > At 02:39 PM 3/19/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: > >>Full and proper market competition would include competition at the registry > >>level also, would it not? > > > > Please specify exactly what you mean by "competition at the registry level" > > and how pursuit of it does not run afoul of technical constraints, such as > > those described by the Internet Architecture Board. > > > > Dave, > > We have over 240 registries today. Can you explain how this works in light of > any "technical constraints?" Do you believe that ".fr" is competing with ".ar"? If so, could you explain in what way? Yours, John Broomfield. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 22:38:25 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs At 09:33 PM 3/19/00 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: >I would like to point out that there has been mention on this thread of >IETF/IAB imposed requirements. I fail to perceive any that are relevant >to this particular question, expecially as diversity of TLD operators is a >policy matter that, to my my mind, is devoid of any technical issues. The reference was to the IAB and neither the reference to them nor the document they wrote cites any "imposed" requirements. That is a perspective on their assessment that is your creation. If you sit on a chair and I say that you are sitting on a chair, I have not "imposed" a requirement on the object that it be a chair. The DNS has design characteristics. A competent assessment of the details those characteristics is not something created by the assessor. If you challenge the competence of the IAB's assessment, you know how to find them and discuss it. You have yet to do that. As to relevance, the question of permitting "shared management" among competing administrators of a registry is highly relevant, when an expert body assesses the registry as needing a single, coherent administration. This can't be wished away, Karl. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 100 00:20:00 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: your mail > >I believe that this would be rather similar to starting the house with the > >roof. Your position "choose the registries" and then get them to choose > what > >they want to run results in a situation in that what exists is there > because > >those registries have chosen it to be so, in other words, the situation > >would be a product of the will of the registries. The position "choose the > >TLDs" creates a situation where the entities running the registry are just > >filling in an operational need, in other words, it is much less unlikely > for > >us to wind up in a situation favourable to the registries just for the heck > >of it. > > Okay, I'll accept your position, though I don't agree completely. As a > middle-ground, then, I'd suggest that they go hand-in-hand. When a registry > steps up and says, "We meet the objective criteria ICANN has set down," > they also specify the TLD that they intend to run, state any information > that is relevant, and perhaps give a charter for it, should it be > decided that charters are part of the procedure. > > But if I say registry then TLD, and you say TLD and then registry, then I > see a compromise in saying both at the same time. What you are proposing is still that the TLDs come from the registries. A true middle ground (which I'm not happy with either) would be on the one hand create/validate a list of registries, on the other hand create a list of TLDs and then just share out randomly the TLDs amongst the registries. A sort of blind allocation. Just for the record, is the position "IOD must run '.web' if this gTLD exists" at all negotiable? Yours, John Broomfield. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 22:45:37 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 20-Mar-2000 John Charles Broomfield wrote: > >> On 19-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: >> > At 02:39 PM 3/19/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: >> >>Full and proper market competition would include competition at the >> >>registry >> >>level also, would it not? >> > >> > Please specify exactly what you mean by "competition at the registry >> > level" >> > and how pursuit of it does not run afoul of technical constraints, such as >> > those described by the Internet Architecture Board. >> > >> >> Dave, >> >> We have over 240 registries today. Can you explain how this works in light >> of >> any "technical constraints?" > > Do you believe that ".fr" is competing with ".ar"? If so, could you explain > in what way? What does theory behind competition have to do with "technical constraints?" Technical constraints do not extend to economics, and the IAB is emminently unqualified to make statements based on economic theories of competition. Dave said there were technical constraints illustrated by this IAB document. I'm tring to understand why there would be any, and where these technical constraints are documented. They don't seem to be in the document quoted. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE41ckR8zLmV94Pz+IRAqOPAJ0WBuzaxi+DsEyei2MCNSJcpf6i9ACfcl81 0bLaXCdmd9LirVk4DSi64KQ= =Bv/e - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 22:56:52 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 20-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: > The reference was to the IAB and neither the reference to them nor the > document they wrote cites any "imposed" requirements. So when you mentioned "technical constraints imposted by the IAB" you admit that was probably a poor choice of words? I'll agree and leave it at that. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE41cu08zLmV94Pz+IRAkNfAJ4oG/Q12JhBAu5HxxLfMztTpMtp4gCg0P9U w4bE1FSYbzezDQvB5Gp2LJc= =CgbY - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 02:07:37 -0500 From: Kendall Dawson Subject: [wg-c] Important -- voting on WG report My vote is: "YES" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 23:19:40 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Re: your mail >What you are proposing is still that the TLDs come from the registries. A >true middle ground (which I'm not happy with either) would be on the one >hand create/validate a list of registries, on the other hand create a list >of TLDs and then just share out randomly the TLDs amongst the registries. >A sort of blind allocation. Just for the record, is the position "IOD must >run '.web' if this gTLD exists" at all negotiable? No, I can't imagine how it could be, considering our current customer base (registrations from over 74 countries and rising every day), and the investment in both time and money we've put into it. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 23:03:23 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: [wg-c] The IAB statement on sharing DNS domain registires An official statement by the Internet Architecture Board, "IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root" contains a number of points directly addressing the question of shared (or competing) registry management. What follows are brief extracts concerning that issue. Note that the statements are quite explicit and direct, and that the IAB views these as technical statements of fact, rather than subjective or policy matters. >1. Summary ... > That one root must be > supported by a small number of coordinated root servers, and > administered by a unique naming authority. >2.1. Maintenance of a Common Symbol Set ... > DNS names are designed to be globally unique, that is, for any > one DNS name at any one time there must be a single set of DNS > records uniquely describing protocol addresses, network resources and > services associated with that DNS name. ... > Since the DNS is hierarchically structured into domains, the > uniqueness requirement for DNS names in their entirety implies that > each of the names (sub-domains) defined within a domain has a unique > meaning (i.e. set of DNS records) within that domain. This is as > true for the root domain as for any other DNS domain. The > requirement for uniqueness within a domain further implies that there > be some mechanism to prevent name conflicts within a domain. In DNS > this is accomplished by assigning a single owner or maintainer to > every domain, including the root domain, who is responsible for > ensuring that each sub-domain of that domain has the proper records > associated with it. This is a technical requirement, not a policy > choice. 2.2. Coordination of Updates > Both the design and implementations of the DNS protocol are heavily > based on the assumption that there is a single owner or maintainer > for every domain, and that any set of resources records associated > with a domain is modified in a single-copy serializable fashion. > That is, even assuming that a single domain could somehow be "shared" > by uncooperating parties, there is no means within the DNS protocol > by which a user or client could discover, and choose between, > conflicting definitions of a DNS name made by different parties. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 23:27:38 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Re: your mail By the way, is the position that AT&T must run '.att' if this gTLD exists" at all negotiable? - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - -----Original Message----- From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Christopher Ambler Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2000 11:20 PM To: 'John Charles Broomfield' Cc: karl@CaveBear.com; mcade@att.com; wg-c@dnso.org Subject: RE: [wg-c] Re: your mail >What you are proposing is still that the TLDs come from the registries. A >true middle ground (which I'm not happy with either) would be on the one >hand create/validate a list of registries, on the other hand create a list >of TLDs and then just share out randomly the TLDs amongst the registries. >A sort of blind allocation. Just for the record, is the position "IOD must >run '.web' if this gTLD exists" at all negotiable? No, I can't imagine how it could be, considering our current customer base (registrations from over 74 countries and rising every day), and the investment in both time and money we've put into it. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 23:29:33 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] The IAB statement on sharing DNS domain registires The point here, I believe, is that there is no current technical way to share a REGISTRY at its own level. But, I believe, the question is one of sharing a registry at the REGISTRAR level. That is, "shared" is defined as a single operator of the REGISTRY, with shared access by REGISTRARS. Like what we have with .com at this time. Am I wrong? - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - -----Original Message----- From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Dave Crocker Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2000 11:03 PM To: wg-c@dnso.org Subject: [wg-c] The IAB statement on sharing DNS domain registires An official statement by the Internet Architecture Board, "IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root" contains a number of points directly addressing the question of shared (or competing) registry management. What follows are brief extracts concerning that issue. Note that the statements are quite explicit and direct, and that the IAB views these as technical statements of fact, rather than subjective or policy matters. >1. Summary ... > That one root must be > supported by a small number of coordinated root servers, and > administered by a unique naming authority. >2.1. Maintenance of a Common Symbol Set ... > DNS names are designed to be globally unique, that is, for any > one DNS name at any one time there must be a single set of DNS > records uniquely describing protocol addresses, network resources and > services associated with that DNS name. ... > Since the DNS is hierarchically structured into domains, the > uniqueness requirement for DNS names in their entirety implies that > each of the names (sub-domains) defined within a domain has a unique > meaning (i.e. set of DNS records) within that domain. This is as > true for the root domain as for any other DNS domain. The > requirement for uniqueness within a domain further implies that there > be some mechanism to prevent name conflicts within a domain. In DNS > this is accomplished by assigning a single owner or maintainer to > every domain, including the root domain, who is responsible for > ensuring that each sub-domain of that domain has the proper records > associated with it. This is a technical requirement, not a policy > choice. 2.2. Coordination of Updates > Both the design and implementations of the DNS protocol are heavily > based on the assumption that there is a single owner or maintainer > for every domain, and that any set of resources records associated > with a domain is modified in a single-copy serializable fashion. > That is, even assuming that a single domain could somehow be "shared" > by uncooperating parties, there is no means within the DNS protocol > by which a user or client could discover, and choose between, > conflicting definitions of a DNS name made by different parties. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:16:17 +0100 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] WG-C report -- final version Jonathan, You have done a great job managing this process but I am forced to vote no to the WG C report. How many is the wrong question. Recommending an oligopoly of 6-10 will do nothing for consumer confidence as it will encourage warehousing and cyber squatting without the differentiation that is so desperately required. Philip Philip Sheppard AIM - European Brands Association 9 av. des Gaulois B-1040 Brussels Tel +322 736 0305 Fax +322 734 6702 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 06:24:07 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] Administrivia Thus far votes I've noticed are: Pro text: - --------- Christopher Ambler | B | yes | | YES | | Eric Brunner | A,D,E | yes | | YES | | Ian Penman | | yes | | YES | | J. William Semich | | no | | YES | | James Love | | | NEW | YES | | John Charles Broomfield | | yes | | YES | | Karl Auerbach | | yes | | YES | | Paul Garrin | B | yes | | YES | | Rick H. Wesson | | yes | | YES | | Roeland Meyer | G | yes | | YES | | Ross Wm. Rader | | yes | | YES | | Scott Pollard | | no | | YES | | Tony Linares | | | NEW | YES | | William X. Walsh | B | yes | | YES | | Con text: - --------- Philip Sheppard | | no | | NO | | Warwick Rothnie | | | NEW | NO | | A Kendall Dawson appears to have subscribed to WG-C in the last 24 hours and has sent a "YES" vote. I don't count it (in memory of the late, and lamented Matt Hooker). The humor of Philip Sheppard's sudden urgent honest activism of a governance-by-generica position and his rediscovery that 6-10 is oligopoly is this morning's gift to those who enjoy thinking things through. Will Milt do the same??? Next Administrivia this evening. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:39:30 +1200 From: Joop Teernstra Subject: [wg-c] Vote on WG report My vote is Yes --joop-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 07:23:58 -0500 From: Craig Simon Subject: Re: [wg-c] WG-C report -- final version My vote on this final version of the report is YES Nuances: 1) I don't see the use in calling certain ccTLDs gTLDs since the sovereign powers over such redesignated ccTLDs could always intervene to remove their commodified gTLDness. In such cases, I would refer to leased or open ccTLDs. I think one benefit of having gTLDs on the Internet is to constitute a structure that is not subject to the arbitrary content controls over DNS strings and eligibility requirements that may be imposed (and reimposed) by national governments. 2) I would have hope to see wording implying the evaluation period would be followed by the addition of new gTLDs barring unresolvable problems noted during the evaluation period, but that section of Jon's report was evidently hard fought and I saw no sense in reopening it. Hang in there, Jon. Craig Simon ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #52 *************************