On 11 July 1999, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
>
>> If yes: How many?
>
>Here's how I answer that question:
>
>There should be no limit on the number of root systems that may be
>established by those who which to establish such systems. When I say root
>system, I don't mean an individual root server but rather an entire set of
>servers that operate much like the current set, a-l.root-servers.net --
>one points to 'em via the named.cache/db.cache/cache.db file.
>
>Each such root system operator will try to attract customers based on its
>service offering. This service offering will consist to two things: the
>inventory of TLDs that it offers and value added services.
>
>Starting with the second thing, value added services - Yes, one can
>conceive of a DNS root system in which there are benefits to be obtained
>by the choice of root. For example, one can conceive of a system in which
>the subscribers to that root will obtain DNS query responses that are
>filtered to exclude well know porn sites. (Yes there are other ways to do
>this, but why should we prejudge the best way?)
>
>The first thing - the inventory of TLDs: A root system operator will
>select which TLD's he/she wants to include. That selection will be based
>on what the root operator thinks would be appropriate.
>
>(Overall, I expect all root operators to try to trump one another with
>more and more TLDs, the net result being that everybody has every TLD and
>the only difference being the value added services.)
[...snip of rest of comment...]
Ok, here's where my fears come out. If we are to fractionalize and
commercialize the roots in this manner, I can all too easily envision the
following:
Instead of laissez-faire competition and selection of the "best"
root(s) in a meritocratic manner, we'll see corporate
middle-management buying into one root vs. others based on completely
unrelated political or financial reasons. Furthermore, we'll begin to
see what's currently happening with the baby bells: They'll start
swallowing everyone. Before you know it, all the roots will be Verio,
or ATT, or ICANN, or whathaveyou. And then, we're back where we
started, except that now, one corporation owns all of the legitimate
roots.
In short, I'm seeing a future in which all the worst bits of decision-
making are perpetuated into the root servers, as well. Many of us have
worked in situations where we've seen exactly these kinds of poor
technological choices made, without regard for the consequences. I'm
feeling like there's almost a need to argue a stance from which the
root servers are set up in a way that would preclude such an outcome.
I'm not saying I'm happy about that, but the alternative just doesn't
sit well with me. Not because it's bad per se -- but because it leaves
so much to chance that there's a large potential for an ugly outcome.
-- Mark C. Langston Let your voice be heard: mark@bitshift.org http://www.idno.org Systems Admin http://www.icann.org San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org- This message was sent via the IDNO-DISCUSS mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno-discuss" to majordomo@idno.org. For more information, see http://www.idno.org/