Good Timing for .COM Problems ?

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

People might want to look on the bright side
of the recent failure by Network Solutions, Inc.
to properly distribute the .COM zone information.

This failure will likely make it clear that .COM, .NET
and .ORG should be moved to a collection of private, NSI,
TLD Name Servers and off of the legacy Root Name
Servers operated by the U.S. Government and a few
volunteers.

The failure comes at a time when the NSF has made
it clear that they are slipping out the back door of the
"Registry Industry", at a time when Network Solutions,
Inc. has recently relocated domain registration personnel
to a new building, and at a time when Network Solutions, Inc.
is raising more capital via an IPO and making it clear
that they intend to continue registering .COM domains.
<http://www.netsol.com>

The timing could not be better for this "failure". The
solution is clearly for NSI to harden the .COM, .NET
and .ORG TLD servers with their own infrastructure.

The various Root Name Server Confederations around
the world have little choice but to point .COM, .NET
and .ORG references to the NSI servers (currently
the legacy roots). Until other States besides Virginia
or other countries set up their own .COM servers, this
will be the case and NSI will have what some people
view as a "monopoly".

2

People might want to look on the bright side
of the recent failure by Network Solutions, Inc.
to properly distribute the .COM zone information.

This failure will likely make it clear that .COM, .NET
and .ORG should be moved to a collection of private, NSI,
TLD Name Servers and off of the legacy Root Name
Servers operated by the U.S. Government and a few
volunteers.

I beleive that 'volunteers' having the 'control' of the internet's domain
name space is in accordance with the *spirit* of the network.

Of course the network is 'run' by (usually) well paid individuals who
work for (sometimes) large corporations, BUT, standards, protocols and such
are created (via the IETF) by these (usually) well paid individuals who
work for the (sometimes) large corporations on a volunteer basis.

The failure comes at a time when the NSF has made
it clear that they are slipping out the back door of the
"Registry Industry", at a time when Network Solutions,
Inc. has recently relocated domain registration personnel
to a new building, and at a time when Network Solutions, Inc.
is raising more capital via an IPO and making it clear
that they intend to continue registering .COM domains.
<http://www.netsol.com>

Maybe I am sorely out of touch, but was NSI actually granted ownership of
com? This may sound like a flippant comment, but I am completely serious. I
may be out of touch here.

The timing could not be better for this "failure". The
solution is clearly for NSI to harden the .COM, .NET
and .ORG TLD servers with their own infrastructure.

The various Root Name Server Confederations around
the world have little choice but to point .COM, .NET
and .ORG references to the NSI servers (currently
the legacy roots). Until other States besides Virginia
or other countries set up their own .COM servers, this
will be the case and NSI will have what some people
view as a "monopoly".

I suppose that this central point of failure has it's positives, it
could be good if the com and net information is corrupted, NSI could reload
proper info on their servers and that would be that. BUT, NSI could corrupt
the data and NOT reload for several hours, rendering the root operators
helpless.

Michael Stevenson
michael@dook.org

3

Then perhaps we should question why the "problems" are occuring at a
time when it would be to NSI's benefit (e.g. future IPO) to show that
the traditional volunteer method doesn't work.

Paul Trotter

Jim Fleming wrote:

4

Seems to me that NSI have shown that their training procedures don't work,
as the operator in question payed no attention to a computer generated
warning that the files about to be loaded were corrupt.

I personally don't find their assurance that such duties will now be
performed by "more senior personel" to be totally satisfactory, perhaps
auditing of their training procedures by said "more senior personnel"
would be better...

David Mercer
Systems Administrator
infiNETways, Inc.

5

Seems to me that NSI have shown that their training procedures don't work,

  That's not the problem.

  The problem is bad procedures, not the failure to follow them correctly.

  The procedures should have prevented the operator from installing the
update, absent serious overrides. Since it is far, far more dangerous to
add a bad update than it is to delay the update, the procedures should have
prevented the update as soon as the update data failed any of its validity
tests. To override preventative mechanisms should require the intervention
of senior operations staff. In other words, besides requiring a positive
override, it should require additional staff who are not part of the
regular, daily activity.

  Merely issuing passive alarms that can be ignored is representative of
basic ignorance about well-understood operator human factors.

  I said well-understood. That, of course, means that one must use
designers knowledgeable in such matters.

  NSI didn't.

  That's a management error, not an operator error.

I personally don't find their assurance that such duties will now be

  Indeed, you shouldn't. It's more important to change the procedures than
it is to change the staff.

d/

6

Maybe I am sorely out of touch, but was NSI actually granted ownership of
com? This may sound like a flippant comment, but I am completely serious. I
may be out of touch here.

I was under the impression that NSI's contract was up, and that root
services were going to move in April of 1998.

7

Jim Fleming wrote:

People might want to look on the bright side
of the recent failure by Network Solutions, Inc.
to properly distribute the .COM zone information.

This failure will likely make it clear that .COM, .NET
and .ORG should be moved to a collection of private, NSI,
TLD Name Servers and off of the legacy Root Name
Servers operated by the U.S. Government and a few
volunteers.

The failure comes at a time when the NSF has made
it clear that they are slipping out the back door of the
"Registry Industry", at a time when Network Solutions,
Inc. has recently relocated domain registration personnel
to a new building, and at a time when Network Solutions, Inc.
is raising more capital via an IPO and making it clear
that they intend to continue registering .COM domains.
<http://www.netsol.com>

The timing could not be better for this "failure". The
solution is clearly for NSI to harden the .COM, .NET
and .ORG TLD servers with their own infrastructure.

The various Root Name Server Confederations around
the world have little choice but to point .COM, .NET
and .ORG references to the NSI servers (currently
the legacy roots). Until other States besides Virginia
or other countries set up their own .COM servers, this
will be the case and NSI will have what some people
view as a "monopoly".

Let me see if I understand this logic.

_NSI_ screws up. This proves that the volunteer and govt TLD name servers
can't do their job, and that _NSI_ should do their job.

Hmm.

8

Then perhaps we should question why the "problems" are occuring at a
time when it would be to NSI's benefit (e.g. future IPO) to show that
the traditional volunteer method doesn't work.

Actually, I'd say that the obvious admission of failure would mean that
investors would be less likely to cough up cash. Also, it obviously
raises a number of questions about NSI's exclusive control of the TLDs,
which would certainly make me think twice about pouring money into an IPO.

Paul