People might want to look on the bright side of the recent failure by Network Solutions, Inc. to properly distribute the .COM zone information. This failure will likely make it clear that .COM, .NET and .ORG should be moved to a collection of private, NSI, TLD Name Servers and off of the legacy Root Name Servers operated by the U.S. Government and a few volunteers. The failure comes at a time when the NSF has made it clear that they are slipping out the back door of the "Registry Industry", at a time when Network Solutions, Inc. has recently relocated domain registration personnel to a new building, and at a time when Network Solutions, Inc. is raising more capital via an IPO and making it clear that they intend to continue registering .COM domains. <http://www.netsol.com> The timing could not be better for this "failure". The solution is clearly for NSI to harden the .COM, .NET and .ORG TLD servers with their own infrastructure. The various Root Name Server Confederations around the world have little choice but to point .COM, .NET and .ORG references to the NSI servers (currently the legacy roots). Until other States besides Virginia or other countries set up their own .COM servers, this will be the case and NSI will have what some people view as a "monopoly". -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation
On Sun, 20 Jul 1997, Jim Fleming wrote:
People might want to look on the bright side of the recent failure by Network Solutions, Inc. to properly distribute the .COM zone information.
This failure will likely make it clear that .COM, .NET and .ORG should be moved to a collection of private, NSI, TLD Name Servers and off of the legacy Root Name Servers operated by the U.S. Government and a few volunteers.
I beleive that 'volunteers' having the 'control' of the internet's domain name space is in accordance with the *spirit* of the network. Of course the network is 'run' by (usually) well paid individuals who work for (sometimes) large corporations, BUT, standards, protocols and such are created (via the IETF) by these (usually) well paid individuals who work for the (sometimes) large corporations on a volunteer basis.
The failure comes at a time when the NSF has made it clear that they are slipping out the back door of the "Registry Industry", at a time when Network Solutions, Inc. has recently relocated domain registration personnel to a new building, and at a time when Network Solutions, Inc. is raising more capital via an IPO and making it clear that they intend to continue registering .COM domains. <http://www.netsol.com>
Maybe I am sorely out of touch, but was NSI actually granted ownership of com? This may sound like a flippant comment, but I am completely serious. I may be out of touch here.
The timing could not be better for this "failure". The solution is clearly for NSI to harden the .COM, .NET and .ORG TLD servers with their own infrastructure.
The various Root Name Server Confederations around the world have little choice but to point .COM, .NET and .ORG references to the NSI servers (currently the legacy roots). Until other States besides Virginia or other countries set up their own .COM servers, this will be the case and NSI will have what some people view as a "monopoly".
I suppose that this central point of failure has it's positives, it could be good if the com and net information is corrupted, NSI could reload proper info on their servers and that would be that. BUT, NSI could corrupt the data and NOT reload for several hours, rendering the root operators helpless. Michael Stevenson michael@dook.org
-- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation
On Sun, 20 Jul 1997, MFS wrote:
Maybe I am sorely out of touch, but was NSI actually granted ownership of com? This may sound like a flippant comment, but I am completely serious. I may be out of touch here.
I was under the impression that NSI's contract was up, and that root services were going to move in April of 1998.
I suppose that this central point of failure has it's positives, it could be good if the com and net information is corrupted, NSI could reload proper info on their servers and that would be that. BUT, NSI could corrupt the data and NOT reload for several hours, rendering the root operators helpless.
Michael Stevenson michael@dook.org
Then perhaps we should question why the "problems" are occuring at a time when it would be to NSI's benefit (e.g. future IPO) to show that the traditional volunteer method doesn't work. Paul Trotter Jim Fleming wrote:
People might want to look on the bright side of the recent failure by Network Solutions, Inc. to properly distribute the .COM zone information.
This failure will likely make it clear that .COM, .NET and .ORG should be moved to a collection of private, NSI, TLD Name Servers and off of the legacy Root Name Servers operated by the U.S. Government and a few volunteers.
The failure comes at a time when the NSF has made it clear that they are slipping out the back door of the "Registry Industry", at a time when Network Solutions, Inc. has recently relocated domain registration personnel to a new building, and at a time when Network Solutions, Inc. is raising more capital via an IPO and making it clear that they intend to continue registering .COM domains. <http://www.netsol.com>
The timing could not be better for this "failure". The solution is clearly for NSI to harden the .COM, .NET and .ORG TLD servers with their own infrastructure.
The various Root Name Server Confederations around the world have little choice but to point .COM, .NET and .ORG references to the NSI servers (currently the legacy roots). Until other States besides Virginia or other countries set up their own .COM servers, this will be the case and NSI will have what some people view as a "monopoly".
-- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation
-- |-------------------------------------------------------| Paul Trotter 299 Park Avenue Network Architect New York, New York 10171 Union Bank of Switzerland phone: (212) 821-6252 ptrotter@ny.ubs.com fax: (212) 821-5877
On Sun, 20 Jul 1997, Paul Trotter wrote:
Then perhaps we should question why the "problems" are occuring at a time when it would be to NSI's benefit (e.g. future IPO) to show that the traditional volunteer method doesn't work.
Seems to me that NSI have shown that their training procedures don't work, as the operator in question payed no attention to a computer generated warning that the files about to be loaded were corrupt. I personally don't find their assurance that such duties will now be performed by "more senior personel" to be totally satisfactory, perhaps auditing of their training procedures by said "more senior personnel" would be better... David Mercer Systems Administrator infiNETways, Inc.
At 02:16 PM 7/20/97 -0400, David Mercer wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 1997, Paul Trotter wrote: Seems to me that NSI have shown that their training procedures don't work,
That's not the problem. The problem is bad procedures, not the failure to follow them correctly. The procedures should have prevented the operator from installing the update, absent serious overrides. Since it is far, far more dangerous to add a bad update than it is to delay the update, the procedures should have prevented the update as soon as the update data failed any of its validity tests. To override preventative mechanisms should require the intervention of senior operations staff. In other words, besides requiring a positive override, it should require additional staff who are not part of the regular, daily activity. Merely issuing passive alarms that can be ignored is representative of basic ignorance about well-understood operator human factors. I said well-understood. That, of course, means that one must use designers knowledgeable in such matters. NSI didn't. That's a management error, not an operator error.
I personally don't find their assurance that such duties will now be
Indeed, you shouldn't. It's more important to change the procedures than it is to change the staff. d/ -------------------- Internet Mail Consortium +1 408 246 8253 675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org
Jim Fleming wrote:
People might want to look on the bright side of the recent failure by Network Solutions, Inc. to properly distribute the .COM zone information.
This failure will likely make it clear that .COM, .NET and .ORG should be moved to a collection of private, NSI, TLD Name Servers and off of the legacy Root Name Servers operated by the U.S. Government and a few volunteers.
The failure comes at a time when the NSF has made it clear that they are slipping out the back door of the "Registry Industry", at a time when Network Solutions, Inc. has recently relocated domain registration personnel to a new building, and at a time when Network Solutions, Inc. is raising more capital via an IPO and making it clear that they intend to continue registering .COM domains. <http://www.netsol.com>
The timing could not be better for this "failure". The solution is clearly for NSI to harden the .COM, .NET and .ORG TLD servers with their own infrastructure.
The various Root Name Server Confederations around the world have little choice but to point .COM, .NET and .ORG references to the NSI servers (currently the legacy roots). Until other States besides Virginia or other countries set up their own .COM servers, this will be the case and NSI will have what some people view as a "monopoly".
Let me see if I understand this logic. _NSI_ screws up. This proves that the volunteer and govt TLD name servers can't do their job, and that _NSI_ should do their job. Hmm.
Then perhaps we should question why the "problems" are occuring at a time when it would be to NSI's benefit (e.g. future IPO) to show that the traditional volunteer method doesn't work.
Actually, I'd say that the obvious admission of failure would mean that investors would be less likely to cough up cash. Also, it obviously raises a number of questions about NSI's exclusive control of the TLDs, which would certainly make me think twice about pouring money into an IPO. Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Robertson gatekeeper@gannett.com
participants (8)
-
Dave Crocker -
David Mercer -
Jim Fleming -
Joe Shaw -
Matthew Crosby -
MFS -
Paul Trotter -
root＠gannett.com