[ga] ICANN now censoring my blog comments!

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Well, ICANN has reached a new low. They now entirely removed my prior
comments!

I was about to reply to John Crain's comments with:

---- start of new comments ---
[One of my past comments (replying to Kieren) was censored (labelled as
"spam") and still hasn't appeared yet, so who knows if this one will
appear either....]

John: I didn't claim that the root zone changes once a month --  I was
doing a hypothetical, i.e. if the root zone had last changed X days
ago, but one's cache was recently updated Y days ago, and Y was less
than X, then the results from using the cached copy would be 100%
identical as the "live" copy, even if we weren't within the actual TTL
specified by the zone file. Sorry if I confused anyone by using made up
numbers, instead of "X" and "Y".

I don't get paid to compile zone file diffs (if some researcher or
staffer has the time, be my guest), but it should be fairly evident
that most major TLD operators would not be changing their nameservers
each and every 12 hours.....if they are, they shouldn't be running that
TLD. One can use domaintools.com to see how often nameserver changes
are done by corporate websites (I already gave examples for icann.org
and verisign.com -- as a third,
http://whois.domaintools.com/godaddy.com reveals that GoDaddy had 2
unique nameservers in the past 3 years), i.e. 2nd level, below the
TLDs, and I'm confident the 1st level (i.e. the TLDs themselves, that
appear in the root zone file) change even less. It would be an odd
network indeed if things changed more frequently as we moved UP the
hierarchical DNS tree -- that's the opposite of stability. The most
frequent changes will be at the bottom levels, not the top.

I'm glad we agree on caching. Of course if one root server is
operating, the cached data can be updated. But, suppose they're all
down? Is it the end of the world? Probably not, since if the stale
cache was used (i.e. like using a 2004 phonebook, instead of a 2007
phonebook), the odds are pretty good that you'll likely still reach the
person at the published number.

If BitTorrent, RSS, FTP, or other technologies are used, one could make
the system even more resilient. e.g. one can imaging a version of bind
or similar software that is caching the root that has pseudocode like: 

"if all root servers are down, try to get fresher copy via FTP; if FTP
fails, try HTTP; if HTTP fails, try BitTorrent, if BitTorrent fails
(then the internet is probably really messed up!), try dialing the
secret phone number to a hypothetical dialup system, given only to big
ISPs; if the dialup fails, keep trying and notify administrator).
Indeed, if the diffs were small enough, one could even publish them in
newspapers (like the WSJ).
---- end of new comments ---

The main initial comment can be seen at:

http://www.domainstate.com/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=74791

Instead of what appears now at:

http://blog.icann.org/?p=37#comments

ICANN should be embarrassed at themselves. After the John Levine post
at CircleID:

http://www.circleid.com/posts/why_i_left_icann_at_large_alac/

one would think ICANN wouldn't be resorting now to censorship (if this
email ever even makes it to the list).

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/