offtopic for NANOG - do not read

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

Warning: NANOG-irrelevent flame about NSI contained herein. Hit "D" now.

There's really no reason any of us should be worried about NSI and the
IAHC competing for domain name registries. But NSI is also pushing for
control over the root domain (.) and if things get too heated up over that
dispute we really could see a partition of the Internet at the DNS level.

This is not a concern. The DNS software vendors, and the root servers, all
follow the IANA. When IANA says "go", we go. If NSI says "go somewhere else"
then they become irrelevant, and they become a travesty, and their gravestone
becomes another mile marker on the Internet's road to glory.

This means "." moves to IANA-operated servers as soon as IANA says so.

This means "COM" moves to IANA-approved servers as soon as IANA says so.

This means NSI had best fire all of its lawyers and maybe its President/CEO.

Internet B-I-G, NSI "little".

The DNS namespace is a public trust, not a corporate asset. "Get over it."

2

You are so full of it Paul that one has to wonder what you're smoking, and
how you've avoided prison doing so.

What the hell has been addling your brain out there in California?

I'd like you to point out the major corporations and public universities who
will do this. I'd also like you to immediately return that nice root server
that NSI has paid for in part or whole, if you really believe this.

Anyone trying to take "COM" and point it somewhere else will find that they
have created a class-action lawsuit with 1,000,000 plaintiffs -- all the
people who you instantly disconnect that have COM domains.

Anyone trying to STEAL NSI's COM zone (to appropriate it as their own) will
likely find themselves on the wrong end of a monstrous lawsuit, not to
mention potential felony theft charges.

Grow up Paul.

Seriously.

The Internet isn't your little playground, and it does not belong to Jon
Postel, Joyce Reynolds, and Bill Manning.

Those are facts.

If you assert differently, then let's see the names of those who agree
with you. They'll make interesting additions to the list that NSI, who has
rights in those databases, should be watching.

3

You are so full of it Paul that one has to wonder what you're smoking, and
how you've avoided prison doing so.

What the hell has been addling your brain out there in California?

  Karl, I seem to recall that you have recently attempted to take the
moral high ground, disparaging those who engage in ad hominem criticisms of
you. Some of us have been amused by you, of all people, taking such a
stance. I'd like to thank you for reminding us just who is speaking and
what he is like.

Anyone trying to take "COM" and point it somewhere else will find that they
have created a class-action lawsuit with 1,000,000 plaintiffs -- all the
people who you instantly disconnect that have COM domains.

  My, but you ARE one for hyperbole, aren't you. But since you are
once again engaging in the practise of law without a license, please
explain the legal conditions that have changed from the last time IANA did
exactly this type of change, moving the administrative delegation for .com
from its 10+ (actually 20+) year assignment over to NSI.

  As much difficulty as you seem to have accepting this, Paul, IANA
is the authority for assignments, not NSI, and certainly not you, no matter
how much you lust after that role.

Grow up Paul.

  good advise, Karl. Take it.

Seriously.

  indeed.

d/

4

I'd like you to point out the major corporations and public universities who
will do this. I'd also like you to immediately return that nice root server
that NSI has paid for in part or whole, if you really believe this.

Anyone trying to take "COM" and point it somewhere else will find that they
have created a class-action lawsuit with 1,000,000 plaintiffs -- all the
people who you instantly disconnect that have COM domains.

Anyone trying to STEAL NSI's COM zone (to appropriate it as their own) will
likely find themselves on the wrong end of a monstrous lawsuit, not to
mention potential felony theft charges.

NSI does not own the root domain .com .org .net or any other TLD.
They were *hired* by the NSF to manage the registration of domain names
for these TLDs, and they have done a deplorable job. They are now being
fired, if anyone is opening themselves up for a class action suite it is
NSI for not relinquishing property that they have no legal right to claim
as their own.

Sheese!!!

I wondered back in '78 how no-nothing dim witted liberal arts majors would
ever find a way to make money on the Net, now I know... They all became
Lawyers.

          geoffw
          Virtual Sites
          www.v-site.net

5

There you are very wrong.

Prior to September 1995 you were correct.

NSI was released from their fee structure from the government at that time,
which was, incidentally, when they started assessing fees to users.

There were 100,000 entries in the table at that point.

Now there are 1.1 Million.

For 90% of that database, the development and operation was paid for with
*private funds* as a *private, for-profit, revenue-funded* business.

NSI put up the risk capital to do this. They did so with no guarantee
of a profit, and in fact claim they have lost money.

When that change happened, the IANA (which really is the ISOC, as the IANA
doesn't legally exist) did *NOTHING*. They ratified this ownership and
business structure by consenting to the continued delegation of those zones.

I believe that if push comes to shove, this will be supported through legal
process.

This is what I've been saying for 18 months, but nobody wanted to hear it
then because it was politically unpalatable.

Too bad.

Now we get to live with the prediction come true, and the ONLY fix is to
open the field to free competitive forces.

Now for my next prediction:
  You will never take COM away from NSI. NSI has a protectable and
  financial interest in that database, the systems used to operate it,
  and a goodly number of the root servers themselves. Therefore, any
  plan for DNS that includes "grabbing" or "opening" COM is deficient
  on its face as it fails to address the reality of the situation with
  that zone.

It took 18 months for my last one to come true. This one should be apparent
by this time next year.

6

Anyone trying to take "COM" and point it somewhere else will find that they
have created a class-action lawsuit with 1,000,000 plaintiffs -- all the
people who you instantly disconnect that have COM domains.

I think most people interpreted Paul's statement as meaning that if IANA
directed them to continue providing the .COM domain services from a zone
file that was not issued by NSI, then they would do so. With the emphasis
on continuing the service, i.e. making sure that all 1,000,000 .COM
domains continue to operate properly.

Anyone trying to STEAL NSI's COM zone (to appropriate it as their own) will
likely find themselves on the wrong end of a monstrous lawsuit, not to
mention potential felony theft charges.

Just how did NSI aquire ownership of this .COM zone when it was all
built with public money under the authority of the National Science
Foundation. Since when does the NSF give away free monopoly franchises?

The Internet isn't your little playground, and it does not belong to Jon
Postel, Joyce Reynolds, and Bill Manning.

Those are facts.

It is also a fact that the Internet does not belong to NSI or Denninger.

The real question is, which individuals and organizations take their
positions of "public trust" seriously and which ones are attempting to
leverage such a position into lining their own pockets?

So far, Postel, Vixie, et al., are the guardians of the public trust
and all those who are lined up in opposition to them appear to be more
concerned with lining their own pockets than anything else.

Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049
http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com

7

For 90% of that database, the development and operation was paid for with
*private funds* as a *private, for-profit, revenue-funded* business.

  under a government agreement, with a government assignment of
responsibility and government review and approval of the fees.

  the agreement, by the way, says that the data belong to the government.

NSI put up the risk capital to do this. They did so with no guarantee
of a profit, and in fact claim they have lost money.

  no, really they didn't, since the captial came from the revenue stream.

I believe that if push comes to shove, this will be supported through legal
process.

  and I believe they won't. ain't it great to have all these free
legal opinions floating around?

This is what I've been saying for 18 months, but nobody wanted to hear it
then because it was politically unpalatable.

  or, perhaps, because your legal opinions are even less than mine,
and that's going some.

d/