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

[Marc Schneiders <marc@venster.nl>]

On 7 Sep 2000, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:

> * 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.

Good luck with the way you think this can be handled. How is ICANN going
to pay all those lawyers they will then need? Maybe by introducing new
gTLDs with the customary tax of $0.33 for each domain? (Did you know about
that by the way? Not many seem to do.)

> >> 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)

I did not and I do not intend to. Being on a Board makes a person less
free to reiterate his own views, once it is clear they will not prevail, 
ad nauseam. It is a fact.

> > 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.

It won't come as a surprise that I am all with you here. My point is
above.

> 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.

No, witness UDRP.

> >> 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 ...

What technical difficulties? Really, it will not mean that more DNS
traffic, which will, I presume, be distributed among a larger number of
servers (new ones for the .xyz and .123 gTLDs I mean).

> >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.

Well, let's archive this and decide who is a true prophet in a couple of
years time :-)
 
> 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?

Yes, but who should this happen? Remember a huge amount of the domains
registered is not used and hence does not generate DNS traffic. The same
will happen in the new gTLDs. Microsoft will register microsoft.web and
put part of its webcontent on that. I know, two names is twice as much
queries, potentially. Now, many will register a .web in addition to their
existing .com, but *not* use it. You do not give people two addresses to
send you mail. Therefore no additional DNS traffic. Also many new
companies etc. will register MyName.Web in stead of
MyNameIsThisButItWasGoneSoITookNumber1234.com. Again no extra traffic.
The extra traffic comes much more from the growth of the internet than
from new names in the DNS. My guess.
And again: I assume there will be separate servers for the zones of those
new gTLDs.


> 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?

The TLD has an IP address assigned to it? Yes, and? Do it with . if you
like: lutz@. 
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Marc Schneiders ------- Venster - http://www.venster.nl % 
%* marc@venster.nl - marc@bijt.net - marc@schneiders.org *%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%