[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       djbdns
Subject:    Re: The Open Root Server Confederation and "djbdns"
From:       Mike Scher <strange () cultural ! com>
Date:       2001-09-29 16:29:33
[Download RAW message or body]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Jonathan de Boyne Pollard writes:
>  > Actually, on the most part, they *do* play well together.  They all largely
>  > agree on the TLDs in the augmented root.
>
> Then why is there more than one alternative root?

My take: Because they're afraid they won't play well together some day.
On that day, whoever controls the root wins the TLD delegation.  It's all
friendly neighbors until the fences start to collide frequently... and
everyone expects them to collide more and more.

OTOH:
Why did TINC start? TINC was set up with no TLDs of its own precisely as a
model of a disinterested root (except .trns for the root, chosen over
.tinc because we felt .tinc would prove "desirable" to someone else and
bring about conflict).  It's important to note that word:  model.  It's a
proof of concept, and it works reasonably well, and since it does no TLD
work, it could scale fairly well.

Now, it IS a shame there is no other disinterested root with more
coordinated servers and some big-name backing (the biggest TINC got was
RedHat and Netcom using it for a bit), because if there were such a
neutral, more scalable entity, TINC might be encouraged to merge
operations and hand over control.  Why?  Because there is zero fiscal
interest in the folks behind TINC, just a "no it's not impossible"
response to the alleged need to kiss the One True Root.

But there's still no easy solution to the one root issue.  Russ, you know
my take on it [essentially, lots of software development, and the
encouragement of meta search levels, and ultimately some kind of exchange
market-like mechanism -- a real paradigm shift, and nothing likely in the
next 5 years, and probably something other than DNS entirely], and I still
back a neutral root idea, at least for now, though my arguments with you
might have seemed otherwise.  That happens when one argues feasibility.
Anyhow.

How to make that neutral root?  I don't know.  Volunteerism is great, but
like with politics, those willing to turn over all their time almost
always have other than pure motives.  Corporate consortium probably means
some frightening over-extensions of trademark law.

      -M

      Michael Brian Scher  strange@cultural.com  mscher@neohapsis.com
                         Sr. Research Consultant
                  Attorney, Anthropologist, Part-Time Guru
                   Mailaise: n, ('mail-aze).  See Outlook.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]