Peter,

OK, now I understand.  It is not the DNS hierarchy which is the problem.  Or, even the rDNS oot or the various DNS server sets.

Yours is a personal difference with the assignment process which causes operational issues for you when you migrate.

Thank you for your clarification.  Perhaps you should approach ICANN with alternate proposals.

Regards.

        Cutler


At 9/27/2005 11:46 PM +0200, Peter Dambier wrote:

Hi James,

James R. Cutler wrote:
Peter,
I must have missed something here.
Are there not individual root domains for each ISO-registered country, not just the US?  And, if there are individual root domains for each ISO-registered country, are they all controlled by the US?
Please explain this in simple words.

The country domains obviously were not the right place. That is why
you find organisations, companies and whatever in ".com", ".net" and
".org"

I have a ".de" domain but I probably will lose it as soon as I move to
france. I cannot get a ".eu" domain because of bureaucratic reasons.
Anyhow I will lose it as soon as I move to Panama. So some 250 domains
are of no use to me. Sooner or later I will end up in ".com", ".net"
or ".org". Right now I dont have the money to bye me a ".com", ".net"
or ".org" domain. That is why I join with people like me building our
own root and selling toplevel domains to people who cannot afford
bying ICANN for monetarian or religious reasons :)

Kind regards,
Peter and Karin


Thank you.
   Cutler

t 9/27/2005 10:07 PM +0200, Peter Dambier wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:

I'm confused by the reasoning behind this public-root (alternate root)
problem... It seems to me (minus crazy-pills of course) that there is no
way for it to work, ever. So why keep trying to push it and break other
things along the way?

Paul Vixie has given very good arguments.
Let me add a design fault:
As more than 80% of all names are registered under '.com' there is no need
for any other domain.
Ok, let us get rid of all those domains and put them under '.com.
Now there is no more need for '.com' either. Let us get rid of it and
we have finally got more than 3000 toplevel domains. That is all we want.
Let me compare Public-Root and ICANNs root:
# IASON ZoneCompiler version 0.0.4
# SOA(".","2005092401","A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.","NSTLD.VERISIGN-GRS.COM.","1800","900","604800","86400").
# lines: 2334,  NS: 1380,  A: 878,  AAAA: 65,  SOA: 2, domains: 263 servers: 64
# IASON ZoneCompiler version 0.0.4
# SOA(".","2005092512","a.public-root.net.","hostmaster.public-root.net.","43200","3600","1209600","14400").
# lines: 11640,  NS: 10479,  A: 1085,  AAAA: 66,  SOA: 2, domains: 3043 servers: 65
The Public-Root has got 3043 domains. ICANNs root has got only 263.
There is a political design problem with ICANNs root. It has not got enough toplevel domains.
DNS was designed as a tree. It was designed decentralised.
DNS today has degenerated to a flat file like /etc/hosts was.
It is no longer decentralised but stored mostly in a single registry.
No wonder that some people try a Public-Root that is independent but compatible
to ICANNs root. They do it since about 1995. They never stopped. The name changed.
The players mostly did not. With every new version of this Public-Root compared
to the Monopoly-Root, the number of players gets more. The number of customers
gets more.

Kind regards,
Peter and Karin Dambier

-
James R. Cutler
james.cutler@consultant.com


--
Peter and Karin Dambier
Public-Root
Graeffstrasse 14
D-64646 Heppenheim
+49-6252-671788 (Telekom)
+49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion)
mail: peter@peter-dambier.de
http://iason.site.voila.fr
 http://www.kokoom.com/iason

-
James R. Cutler
james.cutler@consultant.com