Statements against new.net?

Actually, I'm enamoured of someone's idea to just blackhole new.net and
let them figure out how to sort that. Saves me a whole lot of trouble, I
just get to ask the customer where they got the idea that .xxx was a valid
tld.

If we all do that (And yes I can see a significant [10%+] fraction of this
group's readership doing it), then the problem goes away soon. An elegant
fix, except that new.net would probably sue anyone who blackholed them...

--Matthew Devney

> It is stupid and irresponsible to setup a new DNS root. End of story, read
> 2826.

Such reasoned and well thought out discussion points thrown out on NANOG?
I'm in shock.

I try to be consistent :slight_smile:

> And.. if you let new.net do it then every other capitalist in the world
> will start doing it and then the Internet will become disfunctional, and
> what will that achieve?

Uhhh, so what if they do? Nobody is forcing you to use new.net, or ORSC
or TINC or whoever, or even setup your own roots with the "pick of the
bunch" from ORSC or TINC or whoever.

If you don't use the alternative roots, you're not affected by their
existance... so you can just pretend they don't exist and live life in
your 2826 compliant happy world.

But of course I am!!! If I dont use them then it creates problems because
users on my networks cant reach the new.net sites. If I do use them then
other people copy new.net and all of a sudden we get conflicting
resolution which as mentioned before means you have no idea what site you
are going to hit - what good is that.

You dont have to use ARIN/RIPE allocated IPs on your network, you can pick
your own (non-RFC1918) addresses just dont advertise them, but again what
good is that to users on my network who wont be able to see the sites.

Look: "Internet" its single, not plural that would be "Internets" there
are certain uniquenesses which must be maintained if you want all users on
"The Internet" to receive the same results no matter who's network they
are on.

I dont think RFC2826 does suggest you "choose" whether to obey or not, I
think it says you have to follow the single root if you want to be global,
if you want to be local then you dont.

Also, WHY??? is everyone on this list so obsessed with freedom, choice..
look around, you are not free, you do not have the choice. You are only
free and able to choose within your local environment, once you step
outside you must comply otherwise things diverge rapidly.

Yes you CAN do what you want, you can CHOOSE to do something different but
only if you want to do it for a limited set that is your local network. If
you start selling things that are "new global names" I would say thats
false for a start, how many ISPs support these new.net addresses? Oh, none
so its not very global then.

Okay, so theres a plugin, the ISP doesnt have to comply and yuo can get
around it.. hmm.. and what about when theres 50 or 1000 plugins and theres
conflicts or non-technical people dont realise and start hassling ME
because they cant get to new.net's local TLDs?? I dont want that!!!

I'm really worried by some responses here, I mean comparing it to usenet
jeez!!! Apart from the fact usenet isnt a good analogy its in a right
mess! Theres new hierarchies born all the time, junk - tell me
otherwise! That is what will happen when new TLDs start becoming more
common.

NANOG - take off your blinkers, look around, think practical, think real
world. This is NOT a good idea!!

Steve

Hrm. Somewhere along the line I remember the Internet being defined
as a bunch of networks cooperating in order to exchange information.

When did that change? :slight_smile:

I'll be happy when more companies start to see that they canactually
make money by fostering internet growth rather than making money by
abusing internet growth.

Adrian

On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 06:17:35PM +0800, Adrian Chadd had this to say:

> Look: "Internet" its single, not plural that would be "Internets" there
> are certain uniquenesses which must be maintained if you want all users on
> "The Internet" to receive the same results no matter who's network they
> are on.

Hrm. Somewhere along the line I remember the Internet being defined
as a bunch of networks cooperating in order to exchange information.

multiple networks, yes; but globally UNIQUE addresses _and_ globally unique domain names that map to those addresses. Otherwise, it's like if you went to buy a road map, and the street locations given on the map varied according to the company that published the map. Not knowing where you are going does no-one any good.

Hrm. Somewhere along the line I remember the Internet being defined
as a bunch of networks cooperating in order to exchange information.

When did that change? :slight_smile:

It didnt.. "Tin contains biscuits"

biscuits is plural

tin is single

cf "Internet contains networks"

Steve

You won't find the owners of new.net or their ilk using exclusively names
like new-domains.shop since they know only a small segment will see them.
They will use the standard old names like .com and .net so 100% of the
Internet can contact them. Food for thought for all the sites buying
these new domain names.

-Hank

On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 08:47:05PM -0800, Patrick Greenwell had this to say:
> >
> > Unfortunately, "the market" tends to consist in large majority of 1) users,
> > and 2) management. And we all know how bright those two particular
> > segments of the population tend to be.
>
> Well, those are the people defining your paycheck, sure you want to write
> them off so quickly?

the very reason they pay my (all our) paycheck is for technical expertise -
if Joe Q. User had technical expertise sufficient to make informed decisions
on this type of matter, why would he need to hire a network operator?

Consumer demand is not driven by your technical expertise.

This whole matter boils down to one question - that being, what way is the
Right Way to operate DNS or its equivalent? It seems to me (and a few others)
that, logically, any hierarchical system _must_ have an ultimate authority -
not 2 or 3 or 27, which is essentially what new.net is trying to do: create
an alternate ultimate authority.

DNS as it currently exists is a fixed point in an evolutionary path.

> the very reason they pay my (all our) paycheck is for technical expertise -
> if Joe Q. User had technical expertise sufficient to make informed decisions
> on this type of matter, why would he need to hire a network operator?

Consumer demand is not driven by your technical expertise.

I dare say there is a good consumer demand for a flying car, or a cure for AIDS.

Regardless of that, Chrysler and the Mayo Clinic tell us it's a no-go, so we believe them.

My point here is this:

Although consumer demand is not driven by our technical expertise, neither are our networks dictated by consumer demand. Some requests are silly, or uninformed, or simply not feasible on an economic or technical level.

DNS as it currently exists is a fixed point in an evolutionary path.

Actually, DNS as it exists is a fixed niche in an ecological system. Some niches remain filled by the same unchanging creatures for millions of years[1](see examples: "sharks", "alligators"), while some change within a few generations.

Perhaps new TLD's are necessary- I have no problem conceding that fact. I do not think, however, that one company should have a chokehold on them. NSI finally got bumped out of the i-am-the-only-registrar-seat. Are we so quick to create another one like this?

~Ben, who speaks for himself alone here, as always

[1] Which then translates into about 20 Internet Years

> > the very reason they pay my (all our) paycheck is for technical expertise -
> > if Joe Q. User had technical expertise sufficient to make informed
> decisions
> > on this type of matter, why would he need to hire a network operator?
>
>Consumer demand is not driven by your technical expertise.

I dare say there is a good consumer demand for a flying car, or a cure for
AIDS.

And people are working towards both. In fact, there are a couple of
"flying cars"(different companies implementations) out there. What's your
point?

Although consumer demand is not driven by our technical expertise, neither
are our networks dictated by consumer demand.

Without consumer demand, it is highly unlikely that you'd have a network
to speak of.

Perhaps new TLD's are necessary- I have no problem conceding that fact. I
do not think, however, that one company should have a chokehold on them.

I agree with you, 100%. I don't believe one company should either, rather
it be NSI, ICANN, New.net, or any other player. But that is exactly what
the majority of individuals appear to be rather voiceferously
advocating, saying anything outside the "sanctioned root"(whatever that
means) should be blackholed, the people offfering such TLDS are "frauds",
etc.

> I dare say there is a good consumer demand for a flying car, or a cure for
> AIDS.

And people are working towards both. In fact, there are a couple of
"flying cars"(different companies implementations) out there. What's your
point?

My point is that the laws of physics do not bend to allow an Edsel to sail through the air with the greatest of ease, regardless of how fervently Joe Sixpack may wish it. My point is that, although I could drive the aforementioned Edsel off a cliff and market it as a way to make a backwards-compatible flying car upgrade, it still ain't. The only difference here is new.nets stupidity is a bit more subtle.

Please do not duck the next time the clue-by-four swings your way.

> Although consumer demand is not driven by our technical expertise, neither
> are our networks dictated by consumer demand.

Without consumer demand, it is highly unlikely that you'd have a network
to speak of.

Without us, it's highly unlikely consumers would have a network to demand.

Symbiotic relationships are not necessarily causal.

I agree with you, 100%. I don't believe one company should either, rather
it be NSI, ICANN, New.net, or any other player. But that is exactly what
the majority of individuals appear to be rather voiceferously
advocating, saying anything outside the "sanctioned root"(whatever that
means) should be blackholed, the people offfering such TLDS are "frauds",
etc.

"The Board of ICANN is composed of nineteen Directors: nine At-Large Directors, nine selected by ICANN's three supporting organizations, and the President/CEO (ex officio). Five of the current At-Large Directors were selected according to a vote of Internet users worldwide."

As opposed to "New.net was started in May 2000 by idealab!, a leading Internet incubator. We have developed proprietary technology that allows our domain-naming system to exist alongside the traditional naming systems currently in use on the Internet. New.net has applied for patent protection for this technology."

At least ICANN has some pretense of democracy.

And before you climb on to the trusty soapbox, please don't. I think we are all familiar with your "Damn the [ICANN|NSI] man!" tirade.

~Ben, as always, speaking for himself.

> > I dare say there is a good consumer demand for a flying car, or a cure for
> > AIDS.
>
>And people are working towards both. In fact, there are a couple of
>"flying cars"(different companies implementations) out there. What's your
>point?

My point is that the laws of physics do not bend to allow an Edsel to sail
through the air with the greatest of ease, regardless of how fervently Joe
Sixpack may wish it. My point is that, although I could drive the
aforementioned Edsel off a cliff and market it as a way to make a
backwards-compatible flying car upgrade, it still ain't. The only
difference here is new.nets stupidity is a bit more subtle.

I doubt that you'll find that new.net's efforts or those of the other
alternate root sever efforts has in any way has attempted to defy or
cirvumvent any law of physics.

Please do not duck the next time the clue-by-four swings your way.

Back atcha. :slight_smile:

>Without consumer demand, it is highly unlikely that you'd have a network
>to speak of.

Without us, it's highly unlikely consumers would have a network to demand.

You(theriver.com) exist because the commerical Internet exists. The
commercial Internet exists because people found value that extended beyond
the uses the DoD/ARPA and acedemics had for the early Internet.

The Internet was created by a need/desire, it did not spring forth from
heaven.

>I agree with you, 100%. I don't believe one company should either, rather
>it be NSI, ICANN, New.net, or any other player. But that is exactly what
>the majority of individuals appear to be rather voiceferously
>advocating, saying anything outside the "sanctioned root"(whatever that
>means) should be blackholed, the people offfering such TLDS are "frauds",
>etc.

"The Board of ICANN is composed of nineteen Directors: nine At-Large
Directors, nine selected by ICANN's three supporting organizations, and the
President/CEO (ex officio). Five of the current At-Large Directors were
selected according to a vote of Internet users worldwide."

As opposed to "New.net was started in May 2000 by idealab!, a leading
Internet incubator. We have developed proprietary technology that allows
our domain-naming system to exist alongside the traditional naming systems
currently in use on the Internet. New.net has applied for patent protection
for this technology."

At least ICANN has some pretense of democracy.

And that is all you will find it is, a pretense.

The elections of 9 "at-large" directors was reduced to 5.

The decisions on new TLDs were made by an unelected board.

A study is currently underway to determine if "At large directors" are
appropriate at all.

A contract that was sprung on the rest of the ICANN supporting
organizations at the last minute as a fait accompli is currently being
considered that was would remove the requirement that NSI seperate their
registry and registrar operation, in effect give them the right to operate
the .com registry in perpetuity including changes in pricing, and force
.org registrants to be non-profit organizations.

Now, tell me about democracy.

And before you climb on to the trusty soapbox, please don't. I think we are
all familiar with your "Damn the [ICANN|NSI] man!" tirade.

Perhaps it would help if you were educated on the subject before so
quickly dismissing it. I'm not asking you to agree with me, just that you
actually have some knowledge on the subjects you are speaking about.

If your helpdesk doesn't have a script for common questions, can I become
a customer please?

sackhead by email header sackhead by message body!

i dont want them on my helpdesk!!! it costs me money it gives me hassle!