Re: [ga] More on Sitefinder suspension

[Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@xxxxxx>]

On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 03:36:21AM -0700,
 Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote 
 a message of 141 lines which said:

>   In order to simplify things let me adopt some simple terminology:
>   "Root-D" stands for the dominant (NTIA controlled) DNS root - this
>   is the one that serves the vast majority of Internet users.
>   "Root-X" stands for any of the other root systems.

It is funny that you compare Root-D with Root-X but never Root-X with
Root-Y, another dummy root. Your scheme works because there is a
reference: Root-D. It would not work without it. (There are a lot of
inconsistencies between the dummy roots while they all try to keep in
synch with ICANN.)

>   B) Root-X has more top-level domains than does Root-D but for
>   those TLDs in common, the contents are identical.
> 
>   Case B represents the situation that obtains today between the
>   NTIA controlled root and the other root systems.

With a few problems, some TLD are not the same in both cases. It is
typically only the case with a few small ccTLD whose situation is
unclear (last time I checked, ".tk", for instance). Probably not a big
problem in practice.
 
>   C) Root-X and Root-D contain at least one top-level domain with
>   the same name but with different contents.
> 
>   Case C represents a situation that may readily occur and that most
>   people consider pathological.

Yes, it happens today between Root-X and Root-Y, for instance ".home"
or ".mp3" are not delegated to the same dummy registry, it depends on
the dummy root you use.

> There are, in fact, reasons to have additional roots - not the least
> is one situation that I've had to endure several times, the loss of
> all connectivity to "the outside" due to natural disaster.  The
> ability to establish a local root is a very important tool for
> getting communications up and running pending reconnect to the
> larger net.

I agree. But many people do so, specially in the Third World, where
complete loss of conenctivity between the country and the rest of the
world is common. It is quite frequent for ISP or campuses to have an
unofficial replica of a root DNS name server on their premises. It is
easy to do, since the root zone file is public. Some even announce it
with OSPF, creating a rogue anycast server :-)

Since their content is the one dictated by ICANN, it is purely a
technical issue.

> There is also the issue that is raised by the Verisign wildcard
> situation - what prohibitions should exist on private acts on the
> net?

Are you aware of a dummy root that redelegated ".com"?
 
> 1. There is nothing intrinsic about the catholic root that makes it
> scale better than competing roots.  Should Microsoft or AOL, or
> anybody with some money to spend, wish to deploy their own roots,
> they could easily deploy a set of servers with capacity that would
> be amazing.

I was thinking of political scaling (the ability to make policies in a
very large and diverse environment, not a small and homogeneous
commune), not to technical scaling (no longer a problem with anycast).
 
> 2. I see few republics condemn communities who do have managed to
> establish direct democratic systems.  Yet the catholic root
> community seems to take every chance to deamonize the even the
> concept of competing roots.

Any sign of active repression from ICANN? (Besides ICP-3, I mean.)