Slashdot Mirror
Cracking the Verisign Monopoly
ag writes: "Paul Garrin is on a crusade to break the U.S. stranglehold on the Web. Access to the "root zone," the master file listing the so-called top-level domains--.com, .org, .net, .gov, .edu, .mil--and some 244 country-code domains, is currently in the hands of the privileged few. Through Name.Space, his own root server, Garrin is hoping to 'reterritorialize the Net, bringing it back to its original ideal of virtual space without borders or hierarchies.'" The article brings out the conflicts between Name.Space and the Open Root Server Confederation.
it is a provable theorem of computer science that all systems have at least one single point of failure.
Unfortunately, a google search for "all systems" and "single point of failure" did not lead me to such a theorem; simply to a bunch of marketing guys contradicting it.
And since I can think of dozens of mechanical and electrical systems without a single point of failure, I'd appreciate a link to more information about why this is impossible in computer science.
This man wants to stir things up. Got to love it. But he is not the only one doing somethng like this. The only problem if there is not a centralize operation we will just end up with a islands of domains that can not see each other. He needs to break and join the system at the same time in order for this to work right. I wish him all the luck in the world.
An observation by Douglas Adams:
-
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
Though I have yet to see a solution to the problem, we all know (or should know) the problem exists.
.com was for commercial, .net for network providers, and .org for organisations that don't fit into the other two. .gov for US Government sites, and .MIL for us military sites. .edu for official US educational insitutes.
It used to be that all the ccTLD's and such were not paying 'fees' to have their domains, they just had them. THey administered them as they saw fit.
Yes, this is because the root servers were sponsored by the american taxpayers.
Now.. the thing is, in this world, if you control something, you can make money off it. As long as this system is privatised, it will be run as a cash cow, period. What wee need is an international taxpayer-funded coop, so that big business can't get involved. We need to do away with *all* generic TLD's, and get back to ccTLD's.
Now, you just restart your named and try pinging name.space!
The internet (IP protocol) has _never_ had a single point of failure (or at least, not for a long time now). DNS has _always_ had a single point of failure, and via the TLDs, a single point of control (which is why its become a cash cow for Verisign).
If you want a different model, look at freenet, where there is an essentially flat namespace, and required information gets cached near to folk who request it (much as DNS caches do). However, being fully distributed means that there is no longer an 'authority' to ensure this 'freeDNS' hasn't been poisoned. You then end up looking at scalable trust management architectures (SPKI, SDSI?) to ensure that you can still trust the DNS info.
Theres some discussion of systems like this here: http://www.advogato.org/article/188.html
I can't see distributed DNS getting anywhere now as Verisign would be able to claim IETF were preventing them from doing business.
-Baz
Most US users see .com and .org as US TLDs and have never heard of .us.
.us domain is administered very poorly. Network Solutions "runs" it, and they quite simply don't give a shit about it. Their turn-around time is six weeks per email request.
.US domain has a rigid heirarchy forced onto it, where than smallest domain name available to a business is something like eds-paint-shop.ithaca.ny.us ... plus, the .us domain is required to be run for free. Not just non-profit, but free. You have to delegate to anyone who wants a domain, at no charge. I'm not opposed to this on a personal level (as a .us domain registrar), but it does remove any profit motive. Also, if they allowed shorter domains, like "eds-paint.com.us" as other countries do, it might be more popular.
.gov, not .gov.us, etc. Not ideal, but historical.
.us domain, it's probably remain that way.
Well, that's at least in part because the
Plus, the
Plus, the Internet began in the U.S., so people have grown accustomed to it being an American network. Our federal government uses
But as long as name.city.state.us is enforced as the only legit use of t he
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
This relies on your audience having set up DNS to query their servers for these additional TLD's. Naturally, 99% of the net won't have done, so you're seriously missing out on a lot of potential visitors. It won't be indexed by any search engines, as they most likely won't be searching alternate DNS, and unless people are running their own mailservers with support for the domains, you won't be able to count on getting mail from people.
It's a nice idea - just a shame it's unworkable until it's accepted by the current top level authorities, which of course it never will unless they can screw money out of it...
Back when Internic was run by Network Solutions for the Commerce Department, there was opposition to their control. Alternic was proposed, with alternative TLDs if users (or ideally, ISPs) would switch their DNS over to support it.
.com. They don't want country codes, and they don't want the other minor ones.
This crashed and burned fabulously, but that may have been influenced by hack attempts on root servers, etc.
Still, this seems unlikely. People want
When $100 was the registration fee and nobody was doing business online, people cared about cheap alternatives. Now that the costs of doing business on the Internet are huge, nobody is not going to shell out $70 (or $30/2 years with some of the cheaper services) while maintaining a presence.
Additionally, people want a good domain name or a generic one. As nobody is going to try to guess these random TLDs and assume that their ISP supports it, this names provide no value.
Give it up, "The Man" 0wns DNS and won't let go.
Alex
Their web server (http://name.space.xs2.net/) is already slashdotted... Are we sure that their root DNS will be available all the time?
Donate free food to the hungry at The Hunger site.
If only for the one problem with the root zones. If those (six? ten?) root DNS servers are cracked, the whole 'net is in shambles as soon as the TTL expires for each site.
I'm not sure what the answer IS, but it cannot be to have the entirety of the internet dependant on a relative handful of base servers.
It's like the 'Jesus nut' on a helicopter. Single point of failure means catastrophic failure for the machine. The difference is that the 'net has the capability of double/triple redundancy.
The more spread out the base servers, and the more there are, the better off we are even with the increased work load of maintaining the new rash of servers required.
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
Chris Ambler of Image Online Design, which runs the .web registry, is even more emphatic. "The problem with Name.Space is [Garrin] wants something that no one else has: 500 top-level domains and the ability to create new ones at will. He's trying to claim everything! He makes lofty claims about having a shared system, but it requires people to use his system, and he gets a piece of every new registry! In my book, that's called communism, or socialism at best."
This is slightly off topic - but the quote from the article above needs clarity, and it passes very close by my personal politics and a gripping pet peeve.
Chris Ambler: In this regard Mr. Garrin may be interpreted as acting as a capitalist and NOT a Socialist or Communist
He is refuting to be interested in a shared, libre and community owned/operated system - but instead he is trying to take a "piece of every new registry" for himself; you would really be accusing him of trying to REPLICATE Verisign. This is clearly a CAPITALIST motivation.
Mr. Ambler, you seem to know nothing of Communism or Socialism outside of the McCarthy inspired dogma and disinformation rampant in the United States. Please before you attempt to slight someone for being a "Communist", as if it is a naturally 'bad' thing to be avoided (which betrays your bigoted pre-disposition), you may want to understand what the hell your talking about. Further, it is almost amusing when describing an anti-social, selfish, introverted and greedy act it is labeled 'Communist' when really it is the exact antithesis. The act you accuse Mr.Garrin of committing would perfectly exemplify Capitalist principles.
Communism is NOT about control - that is Fascism - and usually Americans confuse the two. Communism promotes Democracy. Communism does not require nor desire Fascism.
Politics: Democracy, Fascism
Economics: Communism, Capitalism.
To be honest, Capitalism more closely aligns with Fascism. Communism more closely aligns with Democracy. One set of principles rely on Control (Fascism) and Ownership (Capitalism), while Democracy (Equal Right to Participation in Governance) and Communism (Community ownership of capital, controlled by consensus) are really a more natural pair. American political discourse is so perverted by propaganda that a real understanding of the contradiction of their community - the epithaths and principles - is outside the scope of the normal person.
Start by reading this: Fascism @ Dictionary.com, Democracy @ Dictionary.com, Communism @ Dictionary.com* and Capitalism @ Dictionary.com. You are also invited to read: The Manifesto of the Communist Party. written in 1848 by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.
You will find that Communism is NOT about oppression and control - but freedom from the Ruling Class and true democratic principles. You will find that most people who would be opposed to corporate control also have some maintain some ideas that could may rightly be labeled as Communist - but the collective political mind in America is so polluted by Capitalist Dogma against even the simple word that Communism's many merits cannot even be rightly discussed.
*Its very interesting to see that dictionary describes Communism with words like "scheme, authoritarian, claiming, theoretical" which are themselves charged and purposefully chosen to berate the idea.
McCarthyism set back American Culture by 300 years.
In exchange, Name.Space or whoever could give, say AOL their own TLD. Rather than give out http://hometown.aol.com/Bob27484947, they could give out http://Bob27484947.aol.
Just a thought ... dunno if its feasible or not.
I can see the pro's and con's for new domains. Obviously the con's have been spoken for by the previous posts so I won't bother posting them again. (waste of time). The Pro's on the other hand is that whenever there is a .com .net .org domain, their easy to find. The average american and others in the world knows those three. You start adding into the mix too many others, you'll never be able to find what you're looking for.
.com's for commercial, .org's for organizations, .net's for personal, and make one especially for the porn sites... maybe .ooooooh .com name shouldn't mean they should automatically have the rights to a .org name too....
A prime example: a kid in grade school wants to look up the whitehouse for a school project. There's all ready too many domain names, he doesn't know..... he types in http://www.whitehouse.com and WHOA... What do we have here? Little did he/she know that you were supposed to type in http://www.whitehouse.gov. To me, I think that this is wrong. Domains should remain easy and simple to remember.
If they plan on having 118 new domains, then someone out there better find a better way to search then yahoo and google... The web is getting to big to cataloge.
By creating a better searching method, new domains are possible. Until then, keep
And then police them. Just because McDonalds is a business and has the rights to a
My $.02
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
For the past five years, he and his company, Name.Space, have been seeking to overthrow the U.S.-sanctioned monopolies that govern the Web.
So are we to leave one for profit company, and jump to another? I could see if this was a non profit complaining and campaigning, but you have a domain registrar bringing this up, which begs questioning about the true intentions. So this company would stand to profit from a break up, which doesn't impress me, so his gripes are bascially he can't make any money with Verisign in the picture, hardly worth My Rights Online.
Why should an aspiring artist have to scrap to be www.sculptor.com when she could just as easily be www.erotic.sculptor or www.heavenly.form?
I noticed how this turd is obfuscating politicians knowledge about technology with some of his gripes such as the above. For one its not up to any "root" servers to determine these naming convetions its up to ICANN, so why doesn't he gripe to them. The article to me is sort of a bit of snake oil written to beg for sympathy, by an author trying to get a nice sized bite of what he calls the enemy (Verisign).
Should Verisign be the sole holder of root name servers, probably not, but at least aside from occassional issues of domain squatting, the net isn't out of control with fights from domain registrars attempting to introduce tons of new names daily, simply because they're registrars. Here's a solution, create a body to handle it, but make those in charge professors at the most prestigous universities around. This way there can be no commercial control of the domain naming system, nor root servers. Maybe things will be handled ethically instead of morons bringing out suit after suit claiming infringements, unfair play, etc.,.
Ghost in the Shell
360 degrees of Karma
"We're reterritorializing the Net," Garrin boasted, "bringing it back to its original ideal of virtual space without borders or hierarchies."
When in reality Name.Space has by far the most to gain in this movement. What they've been doing for years is selling alternative tld's, with the idea that they would have to be grandfather'd in once the world was ready to use nearly unlimited tld's. All Name.Space is selling to it's customers is a risky bet that Name.Space will get the domains because ICANN feels that there is enough adoption that the conflicts will cause real problems. From the looks of things, ICANN doesn't buy it.
In my book, Paul Garrin is essentially participating in massive domain speculation, with the idea that he can hold ICANN and the roots hostage on the day they decide to open them up to the public. How is this different than domain name squatting?
Someone should tell him that the boom is over and everyone is moving on to new get rich quick schemes.