Domain Rant

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

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

2

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.

3

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

4

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

5

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/