RE: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded
From: Patrick Greenwell [mailto:patrick@cybernothing.org] Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 2:14 PM
You mentioned in your pre-announcement TLD operators being eligible for this new list, but made no mention of domain name registrars.
I count 141 ICANN "fully: accrediated domain name registrars, with an unknown number of secondary registrars due to systems like OpenSRS.
These organizations collectively handle second-level name resolution for the overwhelming majority of the millions of .com, .net, and .org domains in use on the Internet. And while I haven't done a survey, I'd surmise that they overwhelmingly use BIND.
Will these 141 organizations many of whose business relies on BIND be eligible for your fee-based list? Do they consitute providers of "critical infrastructure" in your eyes?
Considering that they have a positive revenue model (vs TLD registries that don't, or have negative revenue models) I would suggest that they pay for it and help support ISC/BIND.
Will these 141 organizations many of whose business relies on BIND be eligible for your fee-based list? Do they consitute providers of "critical infrastructure" in your eyes?
Considering that they have a positive revenue model (vs TLD registries that don't, or have negative revenue models) I would suggest that they pay for it and help support ISC/BIND.
Not all registries have negative revenue models. Just the new ones that ICANN chose. -- Christopher Ambler CTO, Image Online Design, Inc. The .Web Internet Domain Registry chris@the.web
Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spit in awe as Roeland Meyer exclaimed:
Will these 141 organizations many of whose business relies on BIND be eligible for your fee-based list? Do they consitute providers of "critical infrastructure" in your eyes?
Considering that they have a positive revenue model (vs TLD registries that don't, or have negative revenue models) I would suggest that they pay for it and help support ISC/BIND.
I don't think that he was referring to paying for the support/bug reports, I think he was referring to the ISC limiting who *can* pay for this service. I disagree with this policy of making this "service" limited to only certain individuals/groups. Take me, for example, Mr. Joe-running-one-domain-on-a-VAX-and-a-compaq-486. Being the security conscious individual I am, what if *I* wanted to pay ISC for this "enhanced service?" I doubt it, because the ISC doesn't feel that my "business" is "important" enough to the internet to be "worthy" of this "enhanced service" for any amount of money. I don't blame ISC for charging for support, just like Allman and friends do with sendmail.com. But make it available to everybody who wants to pay, for christ's sake. My guess is now that the ISC is doing this, a lot of grey-hats will be releasing their exploits to the hacker world instead of sending them to Paul and the ISC. I don't blame them, I would do the same. Jeff -- Jeff Workman <jworkman@pimpworks.org>
participants (3)
-
Christopher Ambler -
Jeff Workman -
Roeland Meyer