Shutdown of lists on May 30th at 12:01 AM

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

At IETF San Jose, my nuderstanding is they thought Eugene should move
forward with .alt in recognition of the work he had done, and take it from
there.

I don't know what "they" you are referring to, but there has been
no IETF statement or direction concerning this matter. There certainly has
been no direction to Eugene to do a .alt or any other activity.

You'd have to ask Eugene. He was there, I wasn't. He called me form ther
with this tidbit.

As noted, the term "pirate" is rather precisely correct since it
refers to those who try to take over that which is not theirs.

Really ? Who does it "belong" to then ? How is it expanded upon?

You seem to vascilate between "It's a public resource" (in whcih case
can the public not add to it") and "IANA owns it" (in which case there
are problems).

The DNS has
been a well-running service on the Internet "seas" for many years. It has
an established administrative authority and structure. That authority has
requested change and the IAHC was the agent of that request. The work by
the "other folks" is quite simply an attempt to replace the established
authority and structure with another one.

There was once a time when the entire Internet accepted IANA's authotiry.

However, since the day NSI began charigng for domain names and IANA did
nothing, the confidence in IANA has been eroded. "Taxation without
representation" comes to mind.

Given the importance of DNS operational stability, the recent
demise of the latest pirate effort can only make one wonder at the idea of
allowing them to be in the critical path of such a critical resource.

Along came IAHC and the shit hit the fan.

It hit the fan months earlier. The IAHC was created to try to turn
some of it into fertilizer and grow a workable path.

And failed, being rejected by:

        US GOV't
        NSI
        Major ISP's
        Author of the DNS itself

which is enough to render it useless.

Can we get past the petty politics and try to develop a best compromise workable
solution? Nobody has one yet, and 4 or 5 islands of DNS-dom is insane.

2

You seem to vascilate between "It's a public resource" (in whcih case
can the public not add to it") and "IANA owns it" (in which case there

  It's difficult to be careful in using language, isn't it? For
example, I never have said that IANA "owns" the DNS. I said it has
administrative authority for it. The DNS is a public resource and IANA
oversees it. IANA operates based on general community consensus. This is
what has always been true and continues to be true. There's no vacilation
or ambiguity in this. Never has been.

There was once a time when the entire Internet accepted IANA's authotiry.

  Except for the few pirates, the entire Internet still does.

And failed, being rejected by:
       US GOV't
       NSI
       Major ISP's
       Author of the DNS itself

  Richard, it's difficult to be careful in using language, isn't it?

* The effort has not been rejected by the US government.

* Having NSI take an antagonistic role is hardly noteworthy, given that
they are desperately trying to preserve their windfall revenue stream.

* While you claim rejection by major ISPs (I seem to recall only one that
is openly negative) you fail to mention that it is also supported by major
ISPs.

* As to the author of the DNS, Paul often takes critical positions but I'm
not aware of his taking a specific stance against the IAHC plan.

which is enough to render it useless.

  How easily you ignore the many and diverse signatories.

Can we get past the petty politics and try to develop a best compromise

  You seem to forget that that is exactly what the IAHC was. After 2
years of failed effort, IANA asked the IAHC to formulate a compromise plan.
We did. It is now being implemented.

d/

3

Richard J. Sexton wrote:

solution? Nobody has one yet, and 4 or 5 islands of DNS-dom is insane.

Totally insane. In fact, technically preposterous, which is what Paul
Vixie, Dave Crocker and a large number of other people have been
valiantly trying to explain for a very long period of time. Forgive me
for being facetious, but are their arguments finally getting through to
you?

Also, now that you've admitted this insanity, can you please explain why
you are expending extraordinary amounts of energy defending it?

[BTW, I see we now have another "island of DNS-dom", now that our good
friend Karl has thrown away the Old, Bad eDNS (the Baaaaad eDNS) and
reconstituted a shining, new eDNS: the New, Good and Right eDNS who
undoubtedly offer a fair deal to all. As long as KD is in the driver's
seat, of course.]

Nick