This is currently a mostly capex-less exercise. I agree, the load is on operations, and likely at ICANN, VeriSign, and the DoC. We need way more detail than we have, but I hope all parties and the AC's move in a stewardship -and- commerce friendly direction with this. Even if it causes an evolution in the root -- which I believe it will. Best, Marty "Nothing like having a front row seat on the Internet". ---Mary Reindeau ----- Original Message ----- From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com> To: Joe Abley <jabley@ca.afilias.info> Cc: nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org>; Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net> Sent: Sun Jun 29 23:59:58 2008 Subject: DNS and potential energy On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 02:14:58PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
The only decision that is required is whether new generic top-level domains are desired. If not, do nothing. Otherwise, shake as much energy into the system as possible and sit back and let it find its own steady state.
Joe
possession and use of classV explosives is regulated in most jurisdictions. but if you think that if we pack enough C4 into the DNS and set it off, that we might find equalibrium, you might be right. :) the result will still be a flat namespace, (perhaps a crater where the namespace was). one might legitimately argue that ICANN is in need of some serious regulation.... that can happen at that national level or on the international level. --bill
this may actually be the straw that triggers a serious redesign of the Internet's lookup system(s)... if not this, then IPv6 has a good chance. Incremental changes are good - are stable (usually), and often can be compartmentalized. But sometimes - revolutionary changes are needed. and if they have the same attributes (stable & compartmentable) - then all the better. the real issues w/ new TLDs is that they are being rolled out at the same time as IDN tlds.... the number of applications and endsystems that will need to be rebuilt, tested, debugged, shipped, and documented is nearly unimmaginable. your comment wrt operations is, dare I say, understated? the opex for this is huge. ICANN reaps the profits and the ISPs customers pay. (*) Friend Bush alluded to this earlier. It si my fond hope that DNS validation API's are built/tested soon, so that end systems have one sea change and not three within the next 24 months. Oh yeah... and make sure you get IPv6 capability in there too. This will not be your fathers Internet. --bill On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:12:27AM -0000, Martin Hannigan wrote:
This is currently a mostly capex-less exercise. I agree, the load is on operations, and likely at ICANN, VeriSign, and the DoC.
We need way more detail than we have, but I hope all parties and the AC's move in a stewardship -and- commerce friendly direction with this. Even if it causes an evolution in the root -- which I believe it will.
Best,
Marty
"Nothing like having a front row seat on the Internet". ---Mary Reindeau
----- Original Message ----- From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com> To: Joe Abley <jabley@ca.afilias.info> Cc: nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org>; Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net> Sent: Sun Jun 29 23:59:58 2008 Subject: DNS and potential energy
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 02:14:58PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
The only decision that is required is whether new generic top-level domains are desired. If not, do nothing. Otherwise, shake as much energy into the system as possible and sit back and let it find its own steady state.
Joe
possession and use of classV explosives is regulated in most jurisdictions.
but if you think that if we pack enough C4 into the DNS and set it off, that we might find equalibrium, you might be right. :) the result will still be a flat namespace, (perhaps a crater where the namespace was).
one might legitimately argue that ICANN is in need of some serious regulation....
that can happen at that national level or on the international level.
--bill
participants (2)
-
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Martin Hannigan