hey look, that's in switzerland! 
So, not US controlled. (tinfoil hat
off....)
uhm, you can run distributed root nameservers in several remote countries,
but you can't afford a 12 USD/11EU .com domain registration fee??? (what
about .name or .info or....)
It is an ISO list, but isn't the ISO-3166 list still maintained by DIN in Germany?
Rgds,
-drc
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
uhm, you can run distributed root nameservers in several remote countries,
but you can't afford a 12 USD/11EU .com domain registration fee??? (what
about .name or .info or....)
I am not The Public-Root. I am only one of the volonteers. 
David Conrad wrote:
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/02iso-3166-code- lists/list-en1-semic.txt
hey look, that's in switzerland!
off....)It is an ISO list, but isn't the ISO-3166 list still maintained by DIN in Germany?
Rgds,
-drc
The DIN is ISOed. They say DIN/ISO-... sometimes. Often they forget the
"DIN/" part.
Regards,
Peter and Karin
Let me be the first to offer the free registration of the com net or
org of your choice if it will end this alternate root nonsense.
As more than 80% of all names are registered under '.com' there is no need
for any other domain.
Remember this fact for a moment..
The Public-Root has got 3043 domains. ICANNs root has got only 263.
OK. So yours is bigger than mine. Now keep in mind this:
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20050821&mode=classic
(Yes, it's totally relevant)
Peter,
OK, now I understand. It is not the DNS hierarchy which is the problem. Or, even the rDNS oot or the various DNS server sets.
Yours is a personal difference with the assignment process which causes operational issues for you when you migrate.
Thank you for your clarification. Perhaps you should approach ICANN with alternate proposals.
Regards.
Cutler
Hi James,
James R. Cutler wrote:
Peter,
I must have missed something here.
Are there not individual root domains for each ISO-registered country, not just the US? And, if there are individual root domains for each ISO-registered country, are they all controlled by the US?
Please explain this in simple words.
The country domains obviously were not the right place. That is why
you find organisations, companies and whatever in “.com”, “.net” and
“.org”
I have a “.de” domain but I probably will lose it as soon as I move to
france. I cannot get a “.eu” domain because of bureaucratic reasons.
Anyhow I will lose it as soon as I move to Panama. So some 250 domains
are of no use to me. Sooner or later I will end up in “.com”, “.net”
or “.org”. Right now I dont have the money to bye me a “.com”, “.net”
or “.org” domain. That is why I join with people like me building our
own root and selling toplevel domains to people who cannot afford
bying ICANN for monetarian or religious reasons
Kind regards,
Peter and Karin
Thus spake "Peter Dambier" <peter@peter-dambier.de>
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> I'm confused by the reasoning behind this public-root (alternate root)
> problem... It seems to me (minus crazy-pills of course) that there is no
> way for it to work, ever. So why keep trying to push it and break other
> things along the way?Paul Vixie has given very good arguments.
Let me add a design fault:
As more than 80% of all names are registered under '.com' there is no need
for any other domain.Ok, let us get rid of all those domains and put them under '.com.
Now there is no more need for '.com' either. Let us get rid of it and
we have finally got more than 3000 toplevel domains. That is all we want.
No, what you'd get is 25M top-level domains and virtually no hierarchy.
That is _not_ what we want.
.com is an abomination, as are the other gTLDs to a lesser extent. .gov,
.mil, .edu, .info, and .biz need to be shifted under .us immediately, and
everyone under .com, .net, and .org needs to be gradually moved under the
appropriate part of the real DNS tree. I can live with .int continuing on,
but only because no better solution immediately comes to mind.
Let me compare Public-Root and ICANNs root:
...
The Public-Root has got 3043 domains. ICANNs root has got only 263.
There is a political design problem with ICANNs root. It has not got
enough toplevel domains.DNS was designed as a tree. It was designed decentralised.
DNS today has degenerated to a flat file like /etc/hosts was.
What you're proposing is eliminating what little tree-like elements are left
and making a totally flat system. Can't you see that you're arguing against
your own position here?
S
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin
Thus spake "Peter Dambier" <peter@peter-dambier.de>
James R. Cutler wrote:
> I must have missed something here.
>
> Are there not individual root domains for each ISO-registered country,
> not just the US? And, if there are individual root domains for each
> ISO-registered country, are they all controlled by the US?
>
> Please explain this in simple words.The country domains obviously were not the right place. That is why
you find organisations, companies and whatever in ".com", ".net" and
".org"
No, .com, .net, and .org became popular because (a) the entity that .us was
assigned to was both incompetent and hostile, and (b) Americans are, for the
most part, blissfully unaware that anyone exists outside their borders.
.com is merely a historical substitute for .us. If .us had been used
correctly, we wouldn't have needed gTLDs at all.
I have a ".de" domain but I probably will lose it as soon as I move to
france. I cannot get a ".eu" domain because of bureaucratic reasons.
Anyhow I will lose it as soon as I move to Panama. So some 250 domains
are of no use to me.
There are plenty of ccTLDs that will sell you a domain regardless of
residency, nearly all of them for less than you pay your own country's
registrar for a "correct" domain.
Sooner or later I will end up in ".com", ".net"
or ".org". Right now I dont have the money to bye me a ".com", ".net"
or ".org" domain.
You can afford EUR 116/yr for a .de domain but not USD 15/yr for a .com
domain? (pricing from DENICdirect and my Dotster, respectively)
That is why I join with people like me building our own root and selling
toplevel domains to people who cannot afford bying ICANN for monetarian
or religious reasons
So petition ICANN to create a new TLD for poor people, since you believe
that more gTLDs are the answer. Using an alternate root means only other
poor people will be able to reach you (since they're the only ones who need
that alternate root), which appears acceptable at first but will quickly
become untenable. Not to mention it'll be quickly taken over by spammers,
as .info and .biz have been.
Adding gTLDs is a bad solution to the wrong problem.
S
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin
.com is an abomination, as are the other gTLDs to a lesser extent. .gov,
.mil, .edu, .info, and .biz need to be shifted under .us immediately, and
everyone under .com, .net, and .org needs to be gradually moved under the
appropriate part of the real DNS tree. I can live with .int continuing on,
but only because no better solution immediately comes to mind.
Actually, I think you've got it backwards. .us and all of the other country-specific TLDs are the last vestiges of nationalism. The Internet is only the second piece of truly global infrastructure. As a key component in the ongoing trend towards a unified global administration, we should do what we can to encourage cooperation and equality across borders, not intensify their differences.
Tony
Well said! Other than government entities, I never understood why anyone would want a country specific name. Tellurian Networks provides the same services to our clients in AU as we do to those in DE and PK and those in the US of course (where we are located.) I don't want 200+ domain names and I don't think Cisco, Sun, Microsoft, or any other companies do either. When I look for a company, I don't care or need to know where they are located most of the time - unless I am ordering a pizza, but that is a different story... Communities of interest - such as my personal favorite 356registry.org are global in scope and by their very nature! My $0.02 and contribution to the non operational noise on nanog today.
-Robert
Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection
http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211
"Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin
....
I have a ".de" domain but I probably will lose it as soon as I move to
france. I cannot get a ".eu" domain because of bureaucratic reasons.
Anyhow I will lose it as soon as I move to Panama. So some 250 domains
are of no use to me.
A significant number of country registrars have NO residency requirements. I would guess almost half of the 2-letter country codes will sell their domains to anyone in the world with a credit card. Explore some registrars via Root Zone Database
For example, alldomains.com alone is a re-seller of 16 country domains (.us, ca, cc, tv, DE, md, bz, ws, it, at, nu, nl, fr, ch, be, cn)
Is your problem that it takes X months/years to get a new TLD put into the
normal ICANN Root system? Or is it that you don't like their choice of
.com and want .common (or some other .com replacement?). There is a
process defined to handle adding new TLD's, I think it's even documented
in an RFC? (I'm a little behind in my NRIC reading about this actually,
sorry) Circumventing a process simply because it's not 'fast enough'
isn't really an answer (in my opinion atleast) especially when it
effectivly breaks the complete system.
No, the process is locked up by monopolistic ICANN.
There is one issue no one has mentioned lately. There are people who
have spend hundreds of thousands of dollars developing their TLD properties
and they are effectivly being shut out of the market by ICANN.
We shouldn't need ICANN's permission to operate our TLDs and if
ICANN wont support our TLDs, then we need an alternative way
to operate our businesses. We have a right to operate our TLDs and
the Inclusive Namespace is the way, since it does not force us to pay
"protection money" or force us to impose the horrid UDRP on our
customers.
A free market system would allow all business models to exist. ICANN and
its bureaucracy is not needed, just a contractor to maintain the root zone file.
ICANN was supposed to be a bottom-up, democratic, consensus driven
organization and board members (a significant portion of them) elected
by the internet citizens of the world. Almost before the ink was dry on
the MOU, ICANN, under Mr. Roberts began backing down on their
responsibility to operate the organization in a democratic way. Now
very few (if any) of the board members are directly elected by internet
citizens.
The result: ICANN is a corrupt monopoly that attempts to shut out
competitors. If they want something, the steal it, just like they stole
.BIZ from Leah Gallegos.
THAT is the problem with ICANN, and you know damn well it is.
A few issues:
There are a lot of parts of the world that don't have very good external connectivity. ccTLDs often have local servers in the locations they're supposed to serve. .Com's footprint is somewhat limited [1]. If you're on one end of a flaky satellite link, and those you are trying to communicate with are on the same end of that flaky satellite link, but you're trying to use a DNS zone that's served from something on the other end of the satellite link, that's not going to work all that reliably.
ccTLDs often allow people to get their domains from a local organization which speaks the local language, accepts the local currency, and charges a locally affordable amount. $15 per year sounds cheap in the US (or in Germany, for that matter), but there are places where that's a lot of money.
Location-based domains can also separate out the trademark space. Businesses with the same name in completely different markets generally don't conflict, but do if they're both trying to share the .com namespace.
[1]: .Com is served from three locations in DC/Northern Virginia, Miami, Los Angeles, Seattle, the SF Bay Area, Atlanta, Seoul, Tokyo, Singapore, Amsterdam, Stockholm, and London.
-Steve
You have it totally backwards. The problem is that with a single flat .com
space, you have *NO WAY* of knowing where a company is located most of the time,
and a lot more things resemble pizzas than they resemble cookie-cutter computer
hardware sold to us by cookie-cutter salesdroids...
Consider smartway.com and smartways.com and smartwaybus.com. Only one of them
has the bus schedule I needed.
And I'm pretty sure that neither shelor.com nor glo-dot.com doesn't need to be
taking a slot in the *global* address space. In fact, they have a number of
things in common - neither is a global concern in any realistic sense, I've
done business with both of them, in both cases the business was entirely due to
geographic location, and in neither case did their presence in the .com domain
make *any* difference in the slightest. And in both cases, their name precludes
the usage by *anybody* *else* *anywhere* in *any* field.
I've bought a *lot* of music gear at Rocket Music. But rocketmusic.com isn't them.
It isn't rocket-music.com either. They're actually at rocketmusic.net. More
trademark collision at its finest.
Let's face it - 40 million things dumped into one .com without a yellow pages
is a stupid way to run a network. But it's what we're stuck with.
peter@peter-dambier.de (Peter Dambier) writes:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> I'm confused by the reasoning behind this public-root (alternate root)
> problem... It seems to me (minus crazy-pills of course) that there is no
> way for it to work, ever. So why keep trying to push it and break other
> things along the way?Paul Vixie has given very good arguments.
did i? did you read them? did you read the part where i said:
... thus there's plenty of money and power ready to back the next
hair-brained scheme to break the lock, even if (as i expect) lack of
naming universality would be worse than lack of naming autonomy.
if you can't see yourself in that picture, let me draw a clearer one:
i am not nec'ily an admirer of the US-DoC/ICANN/VeriSign trinity, but i
work to uphold it in spite of its flaws and my misgivings, simply because
of the end-game mechanics. if any hair-brained alternate root schemes --
including yours, peter dambier! -- ever gets traction and starts to be a
force to be reckoned with, then THAT is when the gold rush will begin.
instead of a few whacko pirates like new.net and unidt, we'll be buried
in VC-funded "namespace plays". every isp will have to decide whether to
start one, join one, or stay with the default. most will decide to
outsource or consort, but the money plays and consortia will come and go
and fail and merge just like telco's and isp's do today. the losers will
be my children, and everybody else who just wants to type a URL they saw
on a milk carton into their browser and have it work.
naming universality is not merely a convenience. (nor an inconvenience!)
you don't get to be the last one if you succeed. (nor if you fail!)
you, like all alternate namespace operators, are either a pirate or a fool.
do you still think that "Paul Vixie has given very good arguments?", peter?
fine, save 12 USD/11EU/year by not drinking 1 coke each week. My point was
it's a little nutty that you can afford a .de domain at 10USD/9EU/year and
you can't afford (supposedly) .com/net/org.
Anyway, I should have learned my lesson a while ago and not started this
landslide of food.
How about this one:
http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/
Seems to be growing more files every day.
Kind regards,
Peter and Karin
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
uhm, you can run distributed root nameservers in several remote countries,
but you can't afford a 12 USD/11EU .com domain registration fee??? (what
about .name or .info or....)I am not The Public-Root. I am only one of the volonteers.
fine, save 12 USD/11EU/year by not drinking 1 coke each week. My point was
it's a little nutty that you can afford a .de domain at 10USD/9EU/year and
you can't afford (supposedly) .com/net/org.Anyway, I should have learned my lesson a while ago and not started this
landslide of food.
Thank you for the food.
When I got my homepage for free, I did not care about the domain. It was
part of the contract for my mailer. I did not know I would ever need a
homepage. I did not know I would ever leave this country.
I know I will have to think of ".com" or ".net" soon. But I did not yet
look for the prices.
When this mess is cleaned up: