Re: [ga] More on Sitefinder suspension

[Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> >   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.)

I considered any pair of roots that had conflicted contents to be a form 
of case-C.

To me the big issue is formed by two thoughts:

 - Inconsistency that affects the net so that it behaves contrary to
   innocent user expectations is "a bad thing"(tm)

 - People who have root systems that include TLDs that cause excessive
   degrees of inconsistency will lose their client base and either
   correct the situation, fade away, of simply become irrelevant due
   to lack of clients.

So I see lack of consistency as a self-correcting situation that will
occur quite naturally.

By-the-way, the way I understand DNSSEC, it pretty much quashes competing
roots, which could be bad for the disaster recovery establishment of a 
temporary local root.

> Are you aware of a dummy root that redelegated ".com"?

No, but I am aware that Taiwan for a long time (years) operated so it had
its own root servers.  It was the legacy of an experiment with IDN.  When
I pointed it out to ICANN, and then ICANN informally pointed it out to
them early this year, they revised the situation to be in accord with
standard practice.
  
> Any sign of active repression from ICANN? (Besides ICP-3, I mean.)

Well the new.net folks may consider themselves to have been actively
repressed by ICANN.  And I think there was at least one other situation
that actually rose to the level of a lawsuit for interference by ICANN
with a business that was based on extending DNS services in some way - my
memory of these has faded and I'd have to dredge.

		--karl--