Would you tolerate no options in who you buy connectivity and hardware from? No? Then why do you tolerate it in the DNS business?

Because there can be only one authority for ".". I don't like the one we have but I like your proposal even less. IAHC's proposal fixes the problem folks are seeing with NS today.

[iahc-discuss flamage deleted] Folks, A plea for rationality. Granted, the DNS stuff is important, particularly given recent events at InterNIC, however there are better lists to discuss this stuff on, including (but not limited to): iahc-discuss@iahc.org newdom@vrx.net newdom@ar.com /dev/null It would be a shame to have to unsubscribe from nanog because it degenerated into the repetitive name-calling, moaning, and bitching that the (top two) above lists periodically experience. Regards, -drc

On Thu, Mar 20, 1997 at 06:37:42PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:

At 5:46 PM -0800 3/20/97, Karl Denninger wrote:

...

What is it that you dislike about eDNS Paul? I'd love to see some actual substantive criticism (as opposed to "IAHC is God") of the policy points.

you've seen it, you just won't admit it.

you are setting up additional monopolies. monopolies over critical resources are to be avoided wherever possible. the problem for you, here, of course, is that monopolies over critical resources can incur windfall profits. you want to allow that. the iahc doen't.

Mr. Crocker, I really wish you'd stop posting material that just is not true and that you *know* is in fact false. eDNS enables *all* business models for registration of TLDs and SLDs. Not one, not two, not three. It passes no judgement on which models are appropriate, leaving that to the open marketplace. Instead, it prevents any model or any organization from owning a "controlling interest" in the namespace. THAT is the public policy portion of eDNS. It is the only "policy" portion of eDNS which is actually enforced at the root level.

you are attempting to coopt an established administrative structure that has worked well for 10 years, rather than to work contructively on its enhancements.

18 months of working "constructively" got nowhere. Eventually, the time comes to change the structure. Remember, the Internet credo is "rough consensus and working code". We have working code, and are building consensus day by day.

you are holding yourself beyond accountability

On the contrary. I am one man, and the machine I run as a root is one computer. It is the only one which I own or control in the entire eDNS root structure, and will always be the only one. I also have publically refused to take a position with an RA organization, and will do so again if asked in the future. Contrast this with the existing IANA roots, several of which are owned by the existing monopoly registrar or have been partially or totally funded by them. As an example, f.root-servers.net, which Paul Vixie has in his control, he has admitted was partially or fully paid for by NSI. Its tough to tell the person who pays the check every day "no". Very, very difficult. My accountability is simple. If I violate the process someone steps in and my single machine gets replaced with another. I have no authority or control over the root whatsoever. Only consent of the people who use it, and who operate the RAs and registries make the structure work. I don't pretend to hold in my hand that which is not mine.

you are pretending that the DNS gTLD space is a US resource rather than one that is global.

Nonsense. The TLD namespace IS global. There is nothing preventing non-US interests from registering TLDs, and in fact more than one has (proof positive that this statement is ALSO false). There are currently registrars in Germany and Japan -- pretty much opposite "ends" of the world. Proof follows and can be reproduced by anyone who does not believe me (eDNS delegations all have TXT records designating the RA and Registrar responsible for their operation): ; <<>> DiG 2.2 <<>> txt jpn. ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6 ;; flags: qr rd ra; Ques: 1, Ans: 2, Auth: 3, Addit: 2 ;; QUESTIONS: ;; jpn, type = TXT, class = IN ;; ANSWERS: jpn. 86400 TXT "2-23-1-1038 ,Yoyogi,Shibuya-ku, 151, Tokyo, Japan" jpn. 86400 TXT "RA: Alternic / Shirokuma Publishing - Masafumi Yoshida <myoshida@po.iijnet.or.jp>" ;; AUTHORITY RECORDS: jpn. 86400 NS aragorn.alternic.net. jpn. 86400 NS nyc.alternic.net. jpn. 86400 NS mx.alternic.net. ;; ADDITIONAL RECORDS: nyc.alternic.net. 86400 A 207.51.48.15 mx.alternic.net. 86400 A 204.94.42.1 ;; Total query time: 6 msec ;; FROM: Jupiter.Mcs.Net to SERVER: default -- 192.160.127.90 ;; WHEN: Thu Mar 20 21:10:19 1997 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 21 rcvd: 278 ; <<>> DiG 2.2 <<>> txt ger. ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6 ;; flags: qr rd ra; Ques: 1, Ans: 2, Auth: 3, Addit: 2 ;; QUESTIONS: ;; ger, type = TXT, class = IN ;; ANSWERS: ger. 86400 TXT "Kennedyallee 89 Frankfurt, D-60596 GERMANY" ger. 86400 TXT "RA: Alternic / Callisto germany.net GMBH - Robert Hanke <robi@germany.net>" ;; AUTHORITY RECORDS: ger. 172000 NS aragorn.alternic.net. ger. 172000 NS nyc.alternic.net. ger. 172000 NS mx.alternic.net. ;; ADDITIONAL RECORDS: nyc.alternic.net. 86400 A 207.51.48.15 mx.alternic.net. 86400 A 204.94.42.1 ;; Total query time: 6 msec ;; FROM: Jupiter.Mcs.Net to SERVER: default -- 192.160.127.90 ;; WHEN: Thu Mar 20 21:11:29 1997 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 21 rcvd: 264 These are new and not yet actually operational from my understanding, but they ARE registered. These two just happend to pop immediately to mind.

no doubt there are more substantive criticisms, but one grows weary and the list is long enough.

If you remove the blatently and easily proven false statements which you have made from consideration, you haven't posted a single substantive criticism here. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| eDNS - The free-market solution http://www.edns.net/ | hostmaster@edns.net

On Thu, Mar 20, 1997 at 08:30:52PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:

...

eDNS enables *all* business models for registration of TLDs and SLDs.

as I said, it sets up monopolies.

No it doesn't. eDNS sets up NO business model. *RA*s set up business models. Again, you are confusing things deliberately. The eDNS model does not mandate, or prohibit, any model EXCEPT one which seeks to stop other models from being born and tested in a free marketplace. eDNS eschews monopolization of business models. McDonalds does not have a "monopoly". They have a *BRAND*. You like to use that word because it is emotionally charged and you get a "kick" from it when you use it. But the fact is that a company which develops a particular brand has certain rights which come along with that development. McDonalds can stop people from selling "Big Macs", unless they pay the appropriate license fee and adhere to their standards. We don't believe this is "bad" in any other line of work. In fact, the United States and virtually every other country in the world honors these principles. Do you claim that McDonalds has a monopoly? Or do they have a brand of hamburger?

...

Its tough to tell the person who pays the check every day "no". Very, very difficult.

Now, you see. That's interesting, because I don't have any trouble imagining Paul say no, even to someone who has been giving him money.

Really? Well, let's see. So far they have all said no. So far NSI has maintained the monopoly. So far *NSI* has not bought off on the IAHC model, and in fact has issued press releases which pretty strongly indicate, at least from how I read them, that they have no intention of doing so now or in the future. Yet the IANA roots remain closed.

...

My accountability is simple. If I violate the process someone steps in and my single machine gets replaced with another. I have no authority or control

Let's see. That means that you are offering the Root du Jour. And tomorrow, it may be someone else. Personally, I rather have a system that ensures rather more stability for the DNS root and TLD service than that.

On the contrary. eDNS is a process. It is not a person. It will survive if I get hit by a bus tomorrow, because the *process* is valid. It will survive if I turn rogue tomorrow for the same reason. eDNS isn't Karl Denninger. Its a model for recognition of the development of competing models in a free marketplace of TLDs. If the "all shared" model is the best one, then it will win on its own. Nobody has to force it on anybody. The "brands" which aren't controlled by huge numbers of registrars, all with equal access, will fail. On their own. I do *NOT* claim to be omniscient and know what is the "best" model. I *DO* believe the market can figure that out for itself without my "help". Meddling in what is fundamentally a free process inherently leads to higher costs and poorer performance. History says that this is basically always true, and I have no reason to believe that you, or anyone else, myself included, is THAT good.

...

Nonsense. The TLD namespace IS global. There is nothing preventing non-US interests from registering TLDs, and in fact more than one has (proof positive that this statement is ALSO false). There are currently registrars in Germany and Japan -- pretty much opposite "ends" of the world.

Well, since I've lost track of the number of "how dare you take this outside the US" messages you've sent, your above declaration comes as a bit of a surprise.

Not in the least. I've said that *I* want the right to register in a namespace which is controlled by a US organization because if they screw me I want legal recourse. Others may not see it that way. Under eDNS, they have that *choice*. Under the IAHC model, NOBODY gets to make a free choice. eDNS is about choice Dave. Its not about people, and its not about dictators or monopolies. Its about users of the network choosing the models of registration that they want, and the companies who provide those models efficiently being the ones who "win" over time. None of the other models can make that claim. All of them claim to know what is best for everyone else. The arrogance displayed by the people making those proclamations is, in many cases, transparent enough to see right through -- most of those folks have quite a bit of self-interest driving their conclusions, and the rest simply think they're smarter than everyone else. Virtually everyone who believes that of themself is eventually proven to be foolish at best. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| eDNS - The free-market solution http://www.edns.net/ | hostmaster@edns.net

On Thu, Mar 20, 1997 at 09:39:06PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:

At 8:51 PM -0800 3/20/97, Karl Denninger wrote:

...

McDonalds does not have a "monopoly". They have a *BRAND*. You like to use that word because it is emotionally charged and you get a "kick" from it when you use it.

I like to use it because it fits. When a consumer is locked into dependency on a particular vendor and does not have freedom to change vendors, that vendor is in a monopoly position.

The difference between buying hamburgers and buying domain names is that you are free to buy your next hamburger from someone else. While one might counter that one is also free to buy the next domain name from someone else, it ignores the continuing dependency for names already purchased.

If the exclusive vendor of a name chooses to triple the fee next year, the consumer is stuck. The cost of changing domain names, after putting marketing collateral development and building up their own brand equity in the domain name, is onerous.

d/

If CORE decides to hike the maintenance fee in Year 2, 3 or 4, all registrars will have to pass that fixed cost of doing business on to their customers, and not only are you stuck if you stay with one vendor, you're stuck if you *MOVE*! -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal

At 6:16 AM -0800 3/21/97, Karl Denninger wrote:

If CORE decides to hike the maintenance fee in Year 2, 3 or 4, all registrars will have to pass that fixed cost of doing business on to their

CORE is required to be strictly cost-recovery. CORE is a creature of the registrars, in the aggregate AND is subject to the POC which means that there is public oversight. Whimsical and excessive increases in charges won't happen. eDNS cannot make any such assurances about domains subject to monopoly control. d/ ps. sorry, folks. I know you want this off the list, but misinformation begs a response. ---------------------------- Dave Crocker, Director +1 408 246 8253 Internet Mail Consortium (f) +1 408 249 6205 127 Segre Place dcrocker@imc.org Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA http://www.imc.org Also: IAHC member, expressing personal opinions http://www.iahc.org

On Fri, Mar 21, 1997 at 09:41:08AM -0800, Paul A Vixie wrote:

...

Now, you see. That's interesting, because I don't have any trouble imagining Paul say no, even to someone who has been giving him money. It has to do with the nature of the person. That's been one of the hallmarks of the Internet, the personal integrity of those put into positions of responsibility.

:-). I guess you can see that David and I have worked together. Twice he has been my indirect supervisor, and as it turns out he never heard me say "no" but he has heard me say "f*** o** and d** m*****f*****", and I dare say that Network Solutions has heard even choicer words when they screw up.

Giving me money is no guarantee of polite treatment. I do the right thing, money or no money. The funny thing is, people keep giving me money anyway.

A slight correction: You do what *you think* is the right thing. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

...

Because there can be only one authority for ".".

I don't agree with this. It is quite possible for everyone to maintain ".". Then, there would be no need for root domain servers; HOWEVER, this would take massive cooperation throughout the industy, which will never happen.

...

Because there can be only one authority for ".".

I don't agree with this.

This must be because you've read RFC1034 and RFC1035 more recently than I have, and have implemented your own DNS servers which works better than BIND, and you know something about DNS architecture that continues to elude me?

It is quite possible for everyone to maintain ".". Then, there would be no need for root domain servers; HOWEVER, this would take massive cooperation throughout the industy, which will never happen.

I said "one authority". That means "one definition of its content". Sure, if everybody in the industry could agree on all changes, even minor little "add an NS" or "change an NS" changes, then they could all run "." as primary masters. But there would still be only one authority. Since we know democracy doesn't work at that level of granularity, we usually elect representatives. The current nonelected representative is Jon Postel, who is trying very hard to hold free elections without destabilizing what passes for government at the moment.

On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, Karl Denninger wrote:

...

IAHC's proposal fixes the problem folks are seeing with NS today.

No it doesn't.

If you register with someone, pay them, and they claim never to have received payment you're just as screwed. They hold or delete your record and you end up paying again.

My understanding is that the precise protocol used to register a new name has not been frozen yet. This issue can be addressed if CORE requires a non-repudiable transaction from a registrar in order to register a domain or to update its payment status. And even if the IAHC were so foolish as to not consider this possibility they certainly did create a Policy Oversight Committee that can change procedures at any time. http://www.iahc.org/draft-iahc-recommend-00.html Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com

At 8:06 PM -0800 3/20/97, Michael Dillon wrote:

My understanding is that the precise protocol used to register a new name has not been frozen yet. This issue can be addressed if CORE requires a non-repudiable transaction from a registrar in order to register a domain or to update its payment status.

And even if the IAHC were so foolish as to not consider this possibility they certainly did create a Policy Oversight Committee that can change procedures at any time.

The choice of data base technology for the shared repsoitories will be the choice of CORE, i.e., the registrars themselves. I believe it is a matter strictly of operational issues, rather than policy. I suppose one could imagine some bizarre decision by CORE which challenges policy issues, but I doubt it. Rick Wesson has organized a BOF for the Memphis IETF, to consider requirements and technical issues, all of which are intended to jump-start the background work for CORE. d/ ---------------------------- Dave Crocker, Director +1 408 246 8253 Internet Mail Consortium (f) +1 408 249 6205 127 Segre Place dcrocker@imc.org Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA http://www.imc.org Also: IAHC member, expressing personal opinions http://www.iahc.org

On Fri, Mar 21, 1997 at 12:07:54PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

Karl Denninger writes:

...

No it doesn't.

If you register with someone, pay them, and they claim never to have received payment you're just as screwed.

No, you aren't. Today, if someone does that, you are stuck.

Boiled down: You pay again.

In the new model, you will be able to switch to another registrar. Competition, you know.

Boiled down: You pay again. What was that difference again? I know you're good at trying to avoid facts, but this is rediculous!

Perry

-- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal

On Fri, Mar 21, 1997 at 12:51:40PM -0500, Steve Kann wrote:

...

Boiled down: You pay again.

What was that difference again?

I know you're good at trying to avoid facts, but this is rediculous!

Cute, but we both know that you are avoiding the point.

On the contrary.

Here's the point, in three sentences:

a. There is very little than can be done about companies providing substandard service, or even screwing you over, when they have a monopolistic stranglehold on you.

Which you choose freely when you sign for that domain name. Remember, there is no restriction on business models. In fact, the IAHC model is welcome under eDNS and they have been officially notified and asked to sign the charter.

b. In your "eDNS" model, registrars have this stranglehold on you, because you you cannot switch to the services of a newer (better) registrar without having to also change domain names.

What if the cost is 5% of what the IAHC registrar's "best bid" is? 10%? 50%? Who are you to make that choice for others?

c. With the IAHC plan, if a registrar is providing unsatisfactory service, you can switch registrars, while keeping the same domain name.

Again, if that model is superior, and really worth the expense, whatever it is, then it wins on its own. It is UNNECESSARY to mandate the model - unless, of course, you don't really believe it will win in the free market, in which case you're not only a dictator, you're a hypocrite as well. What's necessary is preventing the elimination of free market selection.

Steve Kann i/o 360 digital design 841 Broadway, Suite 502

-- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/ Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal

This message is entirely worthless. Don't waste your time on it. Hit D now.

...

IAHC's proposal fixes the problem folks are seeing with NS today.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Nyaa, nyaa.

If you register with someone, pay them, and they claim never to have received payment you're just as screwed. They hold or delete your record and you end up paying again.

With 28 competing registries all able to handle the accounting for a *.gTLD second level name -- and we expect that COM will be made into one such after the cooperative agreement expires in 1998 -- I expect world class professional billing to be the norm. After all, if customers can switch registry providers WITHOUT CHANGING THEIR DOMAIN NAME, I think that providers will have a little more incentive to mark down when someone makes a payment. (ISC.ORG was put on hold recently. I faxed NS the cancelled check, and they unheld me. This is clearly a case of a networking company trying to do accounting. There's probably a broken AWK script at the root of this idiocy.)

What is it that you dislike about eDNS Paul? I'd love to see some actual substantive criticism (as opposed to "IAHC is God") of the policy points.

eDNS is a coup attempt by disgruntled loop seekers who, having been told the rules in the real sandbox, pouted for a while and then went off to form their own, and are now trying to convince onlookers that theirs is the real one. You should spend some time volunteering at your local kindergarten -- once you have seen how 5-year-olds play together, a lot of the mystery goes right out of DNS politics.

At 06:27 PM 3/20/97 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote:

On Thu, Mar 20, 1997 at 04:15:12PM -0800, Hong Chen wrote:

...

Yes, we have to do something about it. Recently, I have seen several large ISPs got affected by Internic.

I know for sure that both Aimnet.net and Internex.net are putting on hold, despite the fact that Aimnet.net already paid and our check was cashed 2 days before they put us on hold.

You just cannot imagine how many our customers are getting affected. CRL, Aimnet, and Internex likes are major ISPs with hundred and thousands of corporate customers using their services.

Actually, its been rather interesting. Talk about opportune times for the domain to disappear. I've been hanging out in New York, trying to get at my email when all of a sudden the domain disappeared. Its been rather interesting trying to keep up on events once the domain disappears. I don't even know how much email bounced back as "undeliverable, no such address" to sites that have also automatically removed me from mailing lists and the like. In some cases, news had some interesting issues when the names disappeared. *SIGH* Mistakes happen I suppose, however these are rather expensive... You can't believe how expensive they can cost you... I would like to have as part of the whois process to be able to look at the account balance and last check reciept so that I at least can tell if the InterNIC is about to screw up on myself or a customer. The burden of proof on me however is definately unacceptable, but barring a long lawsuit and the like, I'd at least like to be able to see what their records on me or my customers look like. Marcos ''' (o o) -oOO--(_)--OOo-------------------------mdella@internex.net--------- Marcos R. Della Senior Engineering Project Consultant

Perry E. Metzger wrote:

Karl Denninger writes:

...

Its time to move on to eDNS folks.

The eDNS is a joke, Karl, and not even a very funny one.

ditto.. a joke, unwarranted and simply rediculous. karl, some of us are sick of being referred to as: "hey folks" from one who calims to have the "answer" blah /jdp <my opinion and not the opinion of CR>

Perry Speaking purely for myself and not for the IAHC

-- Janet Pippin * CyberRamp Internet Services Network Administrator *** 11350 Hillguard Road jdp@cyberramp.net * Dallas, Texas 75243-8311 http://www.cyberramp.net * (214) 340-2020 (817) 226-2020

Add us to the list of 'paid and put on hold'. We host ipdmug.org, which recently had the same thing happen. You can guess what a burden it was to finally get matters resolved. Steve -- Steve Ferguson | Altair Computing, Inc. Systems Analyst | Troy, MI 48084 E-mail: stf@altair.com | USA WWW: http://www.altair.com/ | 810/614-2400

I really believe that the Internet is to the point where a possible law suit will be brought up by someone. I just checked hinet.net, the internet service of Chunghwa Telecom of Taiwan, who has close to half million users using the hinet.net, are put on hold. No wonder I can not send email to them. Hinet.net is similar to ATT Worldnet, and it is beyond my belief that Internic is in the process of shutting the Internet down. Hong Chen 408-567-3800 (tel) hchen@aimnet.net 408-567-0990 (fax) On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, Robert B. Evans wrote:

Hello, I have had the same thing happen to me, but unfortunately it was on a credit card, and having processed so many domains on that card, I am unable to prove which domain it was, that didn't stop them from holding the domain. My customer had to be up with thousands of dollars worth of marketing collateral already printed. So we paid again. Please keep me informed of ideas to solve the problem. I will think on it as well. Robert Evans sysadmin GETtheNET, Inc. 332 W. Broadway Suite 911 Louisville, KY 40202 502 585 4638