RE: [registrars] Verisign change to operation of the .com DNS lookup service

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ross,

Thanks for the answers. I do not know about the questions being "loaded" but
they were meant to be tough questions (for both sides of the argument) that
would provide the quickest means of getting to the core issues.

I will be posting some additional/follow-up questions after I have had the
opportunity to digest all the input that I receive.

Thanks again for the quick and constructive response.

Best regards,

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 10:33 AM
> To: Michael D. Palage
> Cc: Bruce Tonkin; registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Verisign change to operation of the .com DNS
> lookup service
>
>
> On 9/16/2003 9:32 AM Michael D. Palage noted that:
>
>  > Listed below are some of the
>  > questions that I have identified as relevant in my personal analysis,
>  > and
>  > which I believe it would be in the registrar constituency's best
>  > interest to address:
>
> These are pretty loaded questions, but nonetheless, thanks for putting
> them forward - the answers are quite clear.
>
> > (1) Does the use of wild-cards threaten the stability of the
> Internet, if so
> > how (specific examples not generalization)?
>
> Yes. All applications that require authoritative answers to A records
> are suddenly broken (score 1 for the spammers), there was no reasonable
> advance notice to the DNS community regarding something that can only be
> characterized as a major operational chance, there is little, if any,
> notion of "authoritative" being returned - the closest we get now is
> "maybe", not too mention that email is fundamentally broken - there can
> no longer be a reasonable expectation of delivery because messages being
> sent to non-existent domains aren't being retried and therefore not
> reported.
>
> And in the interest of avoiding generalities, lets ignore the impact
> that this has on ICANN's credibility, operations support costs (with end
> users), the value of the UDRP and the hard-fought gains of the IP lobby
> in trying to control typo/cybersquatting.
>
> > (2) Does the use of wild-cards adversely impact competition in the
> > marketplace, if so how?
>
> Microsoft, AOL, Opera, MelbourneIT etc. would be in a better position to
> answer this question than I could, but anytime multiple providers of a
> service are replaced with a single-source provider *solely* by virtue of
> that single-source provider having a contract to run a database and
> provide resolution for the names in that database, competition will be
> adversely impacted. This is the same argument that I put forward in the
> WLS debate and it is equally applicable today.
>
> > (3) Can these stability/competition issues be addressed by best practice
> > standards that would still permit the use of a wild card service by a
> > registry operator?
>
> That's not for me to establish, but in my opinion no. Until and unless
> such a best practices is proposed and adopted by the gTLD registry
> operators, then any such service should be immediately taken out of
> operation.
>
> > (4) How is the use of wild-cards similar or different to the WLS service
> > previously proposed by VeriSign?
>
> It is an abuse of the single-source control of the registration database
> and gTLD resolution contract that each registry has.
>
> > (5) What protocols does the use of wild-cards violate?
> Specifically, does
> > the use of Wild Cards violate RFC 1034, 1035, and 2182 as VeriSign is
> > required to comply with these RFCs in Appendix C of its
> Registry Agreement.
>
> I haven't looked. I'm sure that someone more qualified to answer this
> will probably go on the record with comments at some point - like say
> Klensin or Cerf.
>
> > (6) If the use of wild-cards threaten the stability of the
> Internet why did
> > ICANN allow the incorporation of a wild card service into the .MUSEUM
> > registry contract?
>
> Why did the staff make an arbitrary decision without duly consulting the
> community? Perhaps thats a question the board could ask. Just because
> the decision was made doesn't make it a valid decision - its just the
> one that we got stuck with. Even if a valid consultation were to have
> occurred - I'm not sure that the feedback would have necessarily been
> representative; there aren't too many operators effected by decisions
> made by Musedoma.
>
> > (7) If the use of the wild-cards threaten the stability of the
> Internet, why
> > do several ccTLD operators currently utilize this feature?
>
> Roughly 12 if I remember correctly - ac, cc, cx, mp, museum, nu, ph, pw,
> sh, tk, tm & ws. All high volume, all high impact if something screws
> up. With respect to the operators of these zones, they could all
> disappear and the DNS community would barely notice. They are irrelevant
> to this discussion. Decisions made in .com effect *every* DNS operator
> and every registrar globally.
>
> > (8) If the use of wild cards threaten the stability of the
> Internet, should
> > their prohibition be enforced across gTLD and ccTLD registries,
> if so how?
>
> Yes, via contracts with the gTLD operators. What happens with the cc's
> can and should be sorted out between the operators and the local
> communities.
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>                         -rwr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>