I do not think the domain issue is beyond the scope of NANOG. In fact, w/o working DNS the value of services provided by N.A.N.Operators is zero. In other words, the domain insanity reached the level where it starts to impact the business of ISPs materially. In other words, it is in the interest of ISPs to step in and inject some sanity into how that vital part of infrastructure is being run. ISPs is the only party in the debate which actually has resources and enough business sense to make it a workable setup. I strongly suspect that "expert groups" and "engineering task forces" have already demonstrated their unability to fix the problem. Now, to me it looks like CIDR movie rerun. --vadim
On Fri, Mar 21, 1997 at 11:57:43AM -0800, Vadim Antonov wrote:
I do not think the domain issue is beyond the scope of NANOG. In fact, w/o working DNS the value of services provided by N.A.N.Operators is zero. In other words, the domain insanity reached the level where it starts to impact the business of ISPs materially.
In other words, it is in the interest of ISPs to step in and inject some sanity into how that vital part of infrastructure is being run.
ISPs is the only party in the debate which actually has resources and enough business sense to make it a workable setup. I strongly suspect that "expert groups" and "engineering task forces" have already demonstrated their unability to fix the problem.
Now, to me it looks like CIDR movie rerun.
--vadim
Yep. The problem is, who are the "ISPs" involved in this whole thing? A half-dozen national megacorporations? No. The 2,000+ ISPs in the US who actually connect customers to the Internet? Yes. What do THEY want? Choice, quality of service, and happy customers. One of *OUR* domains (MCS.COM) was wrongly terminated the other day. They still claim we haven't paid. We claim we have, and have cancelled checks to prove it. We dispute who has paid for what period of time. Fine and well. Except for one problem. They never invoiced us. They have turned it back on after much shouting from our accounting department, pending us receiving something which commercially passes as an invoice so that a real investigation of who has paid for what can be figured out. How do you dispute a bill you never received? You don't. How do you possibly validate using *EMAIL* for invoices without prior consent (ie: by default), as NSI does? The obvious reason for this is avoiding the cost of running it through the postage meter at 32 cents a crack, but heh, if I have to do that to invoice my customers in a legitimate format, why not NSI? Email, especially email without a digital signature affixed, is too easily spoofed to be commercially acceptable for this kind of thing. I don't pay off email bills, because there is no documentation and no paper trail. If audited, guess what -- I have to produce that paper. Now let's look at the alternatives to the current mess: 1) IAHC - Nice concept, but troublesome in many areas. Jurisdictional, regulatory, due process, all kinds of problems. Unknown costs at the CORE level, unknown budgets, single-model. The worst problem is that if it sucks we can't "go around" it as the Internet has always done. Why? Because it is claimed to be the only model which will exist AND THERE ARE PEOPLE TRYING TO MAKE IT THAT WAY BY FORCE THROUGH TREATY PROCEEDINGS. Further, I don't believe they CAN force NSI to play, or that NSI will voluntarily -- and believe that NSI's recent press release backs up that view -- but that's the claim. Costs? $20,000 to play in the lottery, plus $500,000 in hard assets or a credit line for same. This is a "big business" approach to the problem, and directly opposite how the net has been built from the ground up. 2) eDNS - Open. Consensual. Multi-business-model based. Build it and they will come (ie: how the net got where it is today). Operates on the principle that the policy of the root is to prevent market concentration (ie: monopoly) and collisions between TLDs, and nothing more. The IAHC model and their TLDs (other than WEB and ARTS, which someone claimed first) are welcome. The NSI model is welcome. Alternic is welcome. Any other model, including a Freenet who wants to run a registry, is welcome. Lots of choices for jurisdiction under which registrants can select from. Lots of business models to choose from. Lots of different prices to be charged, and different levels of service assurance available for the fees assessed. Due process as allowed or mandated by the laws governing the registry in question. Fixed (zero) costs at the root, fixed (zero) budgets. $0 to play; based on rough consensus, working code, and a published policy for the world to view and evaluate *on its own*. Which model SHOULD win? If you pick or support the IAHC model, then you had better be right -- because the alternative is that the world collapses. If you pick the eDNS model, you don't have to be right -- in fact, you don't have to take a position on the "right" model. eDNS supports all business models, and believes that the "right" ones will survive *on their own* without coercion being applied. I think the choices are obvious, and the people who support the "fixed model" rather transparent with their motivations. But of course, that's just my opinion. I've said my peace on this. Anyone on the "other side" who feels compelled to get in the last word is welcome to do so. Those who want more information can get it through the web page below. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| eDNS - The free-market solution http://www.edns.net/ | hostmaster@edns.net
On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Karl Denninger wrote:
If you pick or support the IAHC model, then you had better be right -- because the alternative is that the world collapses.
Bull! If the IAHC doesn't work, you simply build an alternate network of nameservers and use them instead. Just like eDNS is doing now. Nothing about the IAHC removes this as a failsafe possibility. But first we need to try the IAHC because if it does work it will solve a lot of problems that we are facing. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
At 12:25 PM -0800 3/21/97, Karl Denninger wrote:
Now let's look at the alternatives to the current mess:
An analysis about which we all rest safe, knowing that it will be careful and, of course, fully impartial...
1) IAHC - Nice concept, but troublesome in many areas. Jurisdictional, regulatory, due process, all kinds of problems. Unknown costs at the CORE level, unknown budgets, single-model.
So of course, let's start off with a maximum FUD attack. Heck, if THIS list doesn't sow nice, solid fear, uncertaintly, and doubt, why bother with facts?
The worst problem is that if it sucks we can't "go around" it as
As noted already, this claim is fully silly, not to mention wrong.
believe they CAN force NSI to play, or that NSI will voluntarily --
Indeed, NSI remains an interesting question, but since neither of the 'alternatives' cited here claim to force a solution to the question of NSI, one wonders why it is mentioned, here.
Costs? $20,000 to play in the lottery, plus $500,000 in hard assets
And heaven knows, we can't go around expecting fiscal responsibility from folks who provide such a fundamental service for the Internet. Why, that would be unAmerican...
2) eDNS - Open. Consensual. Multi-business-model based. Build it
Open. You mean, you allow monopolies over TLDs. Multi-business. Well, multi-business, as long as Karl gets to be at the top of the heap, in charge of the root, and we all get to rely on Karl for oversight. Now THAT's comforting. By the way. As soon as Karl refutes the claim that he's in charge, then the question of who is responsible for the root emerges. As soon as he responds that it's a coalition of the registrars, then we have to wonder just how different the eDNS management scheme is from the IAHC plan. The answer, of course, is that the ONLY oversight for the eDNS scheme is the registrars whereas the IAHC scheme put into place a public structure with public representatives, separate from those with a direct profit involvement in the running of the DNS. Karl objects to such public oversight. Why? What is he afraid of? The best part are his efforts to claim that such oversight is new and unusual. This suggests a failure to understand the rough consensus mode in which the DNS has always been operated.
Operates on the principle that the policy of the root is to prevent market concentration (ie: monopoly) and collisions between TLDs, and
Well, then, the eDNS fails. It allows monopolies over individual TLDs. This means that after you get your TLD, and after you invest in its use with marcom collateral materials, etc., you are entirely captive to the ONE registrar who controls that TLD. The eDNS claim that is does not "enforce" a particular model belies the permission it gives for this scenario. Rather than demure from responsbility for the problems caused by such exclusive control, the IAHC model ensures that registrars compete on service, not exclusivity of control. With the IAHC model, you can change registrars. With the eDNS model, you can't.
jurisdiction under which registrants can select from. Lots of business models to choose from. Lots of different prices to be
Nothing in the IAHC plan dictates particular 'business' models, Karl's persistant misrepresentations notwithstanding. The IAHC plan DOES dictate a control model over the DNS resource, itself. And it does dictate that candidate registrars demonstrate basic fiscal responsibilities, appropriate to the level of any startup. But it does NOT say anything at all about registrar business models.
Which model SHOULD win?
The one which offers incremental enhancement to the existing structure, rather than shifting the whole service over to a brand new operational authority (an authority comprising folk with a track record no participation in the larger Internet consensus process and of non-comformance and personality-driven public behavior, at that.) The one which ensures that registrants can change registrars without having to change domain names. The one which ensures public oversight for a public resource. 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, 21 Mar 1997, Vadim Antonov wrote:
I do not think the domain issue is beyond the scope of NANOG. In fact, w/o working DNS the value of services provided by N.A.N.Operators is zero. In other words, the domain insanity reached the level where it starts to impact the business of ISPs materially.
In other words, it is in the interest of ISPs to step in and inject some sanity into how that vital part of infrastructure is being run.
I agree 100% with this. However, NANOG is not the right forum. First, this is more than just an operational issue. Thus I would claim that it should be discussed in a forum like inet-access which does cover business issues, politics and everything related to the ISP industry. It also has broader participation by small to mid-size ISP's who are arguably the closest to the Internet's user base. Send a subscribe message to inet-access@earth.com Alternatively, I think this issue should be addressed in ISP trade associations and, in fact, the members of the ISP/C of which I am a director are currently discussing what action, if any, we might take. Trade associations are a better place, IMHO, to deal with policy issues. More info on ISP/C at http://www.ispc.org and, of course, there is also the CIX and CAIP as well.
ISPs is the only party in the debate which actually has resources and enough business sense to make it a workable setup. I strongly suspect that "expert groups" and "engineering task forces" have already demonstrated their unability to fix the problem.
Not quite. Remember that some engineering projects take lots of time and planning and then take lots of construction time. Engineering is not synonymous with quick. Consider the BART system, the chunnel, space station Alpha. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
participants (4)
-
Dave Crocker
-
Karl Denninger
-
Michael Dillon
-
Vadim Antonov