Re: [ICANN-EU] Re: Don't waste your endorsement

[lutz@iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)]

* Marc Schneiders wrote:
>On 6 Sep 2000, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
>> * Marc Schneiders wrote:
>> > Dozens in fact. But they all pay $6 to NSI for each domain.
>> 
>> This is a contract problem and not a problem of DNS.
>
>Correct. But this still leaves the fact, that we were talking about :-) 
>There is no fair competition, but a de facto monopoly, maybe even a de
>jure one, but I'm no lawyer.

So a de jure solution has to be found. No requirement for new TLDs.

>> I do not oppose the profits, I do oppose the creation of TLDs solely for
>> profit.
>
> I am all with you on this. A few months back I campaigned against new
> TLDs for that reason and others. But this battle is lost, it seems.

In this endorsment period personal opinions are queried. So please do not
switch to Janette's mode (no offend, it's truly valid to point to or wait
for 'best' results)

> In a concensus model one has to be able to say: OK, we have it your way.
> And then try to participate in making the best of it. Being on the ICANN
> Board will mean having to accept the introduction of new TLDs and working
> towards a decent launching of them. (I may go on saying NO :-)

Definitly. But you miss the discussion and voting period in such a board.
There personal opinions are very interesting. I'm pretty sure you do not
expect somebody saying 'Do what you want, I'll support the result anyway.'
as a director.

Somebody not able to working with consensus results even if they are
contradictory to his own opinion will fail as a director. It might be a
reason to kick him off the board. This does not imply that every decision
made is indisputable.

>> And I do not see new TLDs as a valid method to break the monopoly. This
>> must be done by legal actions.
>
> New TLDs not under NSI are an easier method to break the monopoly. It is
> all about appeasing certain lobbies without getting into trouble. We both
> know that.

Yep. This is the easiest solution. But it is a bad one for the net. The
technical problems arising will not be solved by ICANN or the registries,
but by the admins ...

>Prophecy: There will be some (3, 4 or 5) new generic TLDs under a CORE
>registry. .WEB will probably not be among those, because of the legal
>problems that will cause with IODesign.
>There will be a few chartered TLDs (3 - 6) as well.

In the short term (two years). Then we will have an expotentially increasing
number of TLDs including mercedes, coca-cola, cola, coca, germany, icann,
"brand", ... and a deep performance impact on the root name servers.

The reason for structuring the DNS is to keep a good performance on queries
and updates. Can you imagine what happens if the query performance goes down?
Can you imagine the legal consequences of overloaded servers unable to
process updates timely?

No, I do not see new TLDs to break NSI's monopoly as an easy solution, but a
unfortunely probable one.

BTW: $ nslookup -q=any bofh
     bofh	internet address = 193.174.15.34
     bofh	preference = 10, mail exchanger = jengate.thur.de
     bofh	preference = 100, mail exchanger = mail.inpw.net
     bofh	preference = 100, mail exchanger = annwfn.erfurt.thur.de
     bofh	nameserver = jengate.thur.de
     ... many NS records snipped ...
     bofh
	origin = jengate.thur.de
	mail addr = hostmaster.bofh
	serial = 2000051502
	refresh = 28800 (8 hours)
	retry   = 3600 (1 hour)
	expire  = 3600000 (41 days 16 hours)
	minimum ttl = 57600 (16 hours)

See my point?

PS: I added some of my recent answers to
    http://www.iks-jena.de/mitarb/lutz/icann.statments.html