IBM has spent 2 years of it's $60M a year Washnigton DC lobbying budget on ICANN to see there are no new TLDs to protect it's trademarks. If there is to be any progress in namespace expansion in the DNS it will have to come from a grassroots effort. You're waiting till IBM legitimzes this? Now whose being naive?
You're quite right it IS (or rather WAS) a typo. The only reason nobody caught it was because it wasn't a typo in the root zone it was a type in my in-addr.arpa zone for 199.166.24. Moreso, since 199.166.24.1 has multiple A records pointing to it and mutiple PTR records (yes, it's legal, really, see RFC 2181) it never affected the operation of the root zone.
Thanks muchly for catching this, I fixed it as soon as I read this. I have long hoped the/. community would in a sense become a part of the alternative root movement. Maybe this is one small step:-)
Since I began using this network in 1986 I've always seen the spirit of the network as cooperation not one-upmanship. But yes, there has been a.biz (one of ICANN's choices) since the mid 90's and registrations are being accepted in that tld. To go ahead and create now a.museum just to collide with ICANN's choice would not be proper IMH.
Who exactly is fragmenting the net? The.BIZ referenced above predates the one that applied to ICANN by FOUR YEARS.
If I decide one day I'm sick of spam from Taiwan and take.TW out of the list of TLDS my server knows about I have in your opinion "fractured the net". So what? Is it really any of your business what I do with my machine? I'll make you a deal though: you don't tell me what to do with my computer and I won't tell you what to do with yours. You see the net is not controlled by a central authority, it's controlled at the edges by individuals with their own nameservers who each decide where to get their root level nameservice from.
To this end if some people want to support alternative root systems (as at least one ICANN board member does by running the ORSC root zone) is it really any of your business if he can see more domains than you can?
Big brother is not watching me. I'm sorry if that bothers you.
Who do we talk to around here to point http://slash.dot and http://slash.news at this site? If anybody can figure that out send mail to Simon@higgs.com.
to do about it? If you have a vision for a TLD and the way it should be run then get some people, some machines, write or borrow some software and deploy the thing. Code talks, bullshit walks.
When you get your TLD up send me the glue records at hostmaster@open-rsc.org.
.BIZ was first deployed by Karl Denninger around 5 years ago. I think he charged $25 or something. Karl subsequently sold MCS.NET and these days Leah Gallegos runs.BIZ. I think she charges about $6 with the idea that that's wholesale and anybody can be a "registrar" for somebody else or just grab domains for themselves. The URL is HTTP://WWW.BIZTLD.NET.
The.BIZ TLD resolves in many of the popular alternative root clusters: ORSC, TINC, PacROOT
Being outside the ICANN/US Government system means it's not subject to dangerous foolishness like the horribly flawed UDRP and silly-assed "sunrise" provision.
If you were at the ICANN meeting in LA or watched on ReadBadVideo you'd have noticed that the application was indeed for.air (so names like us.air, northwest.air etc could exist) but ONE ICANN board member said it was "too generic" (God forbid a Generic-Top-Level-Domain be "too generic") so the board decided it should be.aero.
Somehow US Air getting us.aero does't have quite the same cachet. If I was the TLD applicant that gave ICANN $50K to review the proposal which could have easily have cost 10X that much to write I think I'd be pretty annoyed.
Barry Shein proposed this idea on the ENIAC mailing list about 1989. There is some merit to it. I've played around a bit and found BIND8 can handle all numeric domains with no problem but BIND4 pukes, so you need a letter in there somewhere.
There is an ancilliary idea that rides on top of this which addresses what I call the ".tel" problem, and that is do we really want a single point of control/failure for all telephone numbers under IP. If that single point has anything to do with the scoundrels at the ITU then no; run screaming into the night.
What might make sense is to divide telephone number domain up with 10,000 numeric tlds to distribute the load, control and responsabillity. For example my phone number is +1 (613) 473-1719 and if you (even for a moment) point your nameserver at 199.166.24.1 then you can type http://ph-1.613.473.1719 then you'll get to my home page. Obiously this would scale to be a billion domains under 10,000 tlds.
A few years ago this would be an unthinkable horror but with contemporaty technology it's a no brainer.
If your phone number ends in 1719 and you want a domnain like this send me mail to richard@vrx.net.
As GC is would have to answer out of band names. If you're serious about running.hom and would like me to include it in the ORSC root send me the namesevers for that zone. I can arrange secondaries for you if you like
A proof of concept to add new TLDS? Excuse me byt new tlds get added all the time. Ah, but you say those are cctlds. Well, guess what, there is a move underfoot to declare generic tlds such as.nu,.tv,.to etc as generic tlds. So in reality new tlds get added all the time.
Now, of the 258+ cctlds currently in the root how many had to pass muster for technical, business or adminisrative criteria? None. How many started with massive amounts of capital for marketing? None. How many have failed? None.
See, if you're registering into top level domains people are sending you money. When all you have to so is stick two lines of text into a tld zone file for each domain and you get paid to do that it's difficult to imagine how any failure scenario is possible - to say nothing of the fact that if ICANN says "ok, you get a TLD" I have little doubt the VC swine come closing in for the kill.
Hell, look at one of Esther's investments: agency.com. It was started with $80 and will do something on the order of millions if not billions this year.
There do indeed need to be finite limits on the number of TLDs, but they are extremely large numbers. Even our most ardent critics now state publically that it's well over 10,000.
Hi; I run the aforementione rogue root server cluster and I can't spell rogue either on any given day but I can spell alternative and that' what I usually call it. I've been doing this for about 5 years now and survived such unmitigated disasters as the Kashopureff era Alternic (RIP) having Dave Crocker send the police to my door and being told by Becky Burr that "we have no problems with alternative roots, we just don't think they're practical". They're apparantly so not practical that there is language in the DOC/NSI cooperative agreement that says "NSI will never run an alternative server". It sure is sweet of Becky to prevent NSI from doing something impractical. Here are some pointers.
If you want to get an overview of our ideas go here http://www.open-rsc.org/
If you want to see our thoughts on the horribly flawed sunrise provision go here http://sunrise.open-rsc.org/
If you want to find how to support or implement the ORSC root go here http://support.open-rsc.org/
If you want to read some alleged words of wisdom go here http://www.open-rsc.org/essays/
If you want to see who is behind this go here http://www.open-rsc.org/about/who/
If you want an easy way to upgrade a windoes bx to use the ORSC root go here http://www.open-rsc.org/setdns/
If you run UNIX (and of course you shoud) and want a root zone you can just plonk down into your config, or just want to read our root zone go here ftp://dns.vrx.net/pub/db.root
We're always looking for people who want to offer alternative stub resolvers for public access. Write to me at richard@dns.list or richard@vrx.net if you want to help or just want more information. I don't really do phone but if you want to call my number is in whois.
Why am I doing this? Well, two reasons. First, I've caused enough trouble on usenet (I, um, sorta created alt.sex) and figure it was time to move on and get on other peoples faces and second Brian Reid convinved me it was a good idea and I always do what Brian says. You should to.
There is a great temptation to paint all the alternative root/tld/stub servers red so they truly are rougue servers. Can anybody suggest a Pantone(TM) color?
IOD attended a meeting with IANA in 1996 and was told to deploy the.web registry and charge for registrations. To it's great credit some members of the board (Cerf, Fockler, that Linda woman and smoebody else) said they felt uncomfortable giving.web to somebody else knowing IOD had been pioneering this effort for 4 years. They still had a couple of reservations about IOD app and decided to "reserve".web for future consideration but were not prepared to give it to the NSI/register.com backed Afilias consortium.
If you watch the RealVideo of this event you'll see ICANN "Staph" (Joe Sims in particular) fighting long and hard to manipulate the board to give.web to Afilias. Bulldog Cerf stood up to them though in a remarkable display of cojones and.web is safe - for now.
Aurbach "How I would decide TLDS if I were seated"
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.as p?s=cyber&dir=icann&file=icann-111500&star t=10-31-32
Peter Dengate Thrush: "We (cctlds) may look for other root servers"
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.as p?s=cyber&dir=icann&file=icann-111500&star t=10-39-10
Esther Dysan, when asked in the first ICANN meeting two years ago in Boston told us that she was picked by Roger Cochettu of IBM (now a VP of NSI oops "verisgn") and Ira Magaziner. This is particularly loathsme as throughout ther next year at IFWP ("International Meetings for the White Paper") meetings in Restin, Geneva and Singapore each meeting was opened by Ira who kept asserting "you people have to decide the structure and pick the board". There was supposed to be a rourth *wrap up* meeting of IFWP where all the consensus points from these metings were to be rolled into a final set of documents that were to be the incorporation of "newco" and board members were to be picked by the comunity. But that fourth meeting eas scuttled by non other than Mike Roberts who was there as head of EDUCAUSE but who had already been told queitly "don't worry, we already have a board and you get to be prez". So we were sandbagged by Ira Magaziner just coming down from a jag of being sued over the health care debacle. Where are then now? Well, Ira has formed an Internet consultancy with Paul Twomey the had of ICANN's aptly named GAC ("Government advisory committee".)
Once a year seems like a safe bet, that's IF the Department of Commerce takes their suggestion to add the current new tlds that's IF theyt survice the negition round with "staph". Remember, ICANN has no authority to add new TLDs. Only the Department of Commerce does.
There is no technical limit to the number of new tlds. There are operational contrasints however: you'd better have OC48's on the root servers if you get much about several million tlds. Other than that it just scales away merrily.
Karl Aurbach, the newly elected ICANN board member has workd with a couple of people and tested over a million tlds. It works just fine. You can reach karl at karl@the.web.
The intellectual property community does not see a need for new tlds. If you watch the ICANN meeting in RealVideo you can see which people sitting up at the front are pawn of the trademark wonks and which ones actually have some backbone.
If you survey the DNS landscape you'll notice that there is a worldwide trend away from multi level domains as all the cctlds scramble to do away with this.that.the-other.cctld. They're dropping like flies. I postulate.com did so well because you could get anything-you-want.com.
Domains seem to work best verb adjective noun.
Verb is like "goto"
A trademark has to be a adjective and has to have a noun. This is how you get many trademarks in different categories.
Slashdot Mirror
IBM has spent 2 years of it's $60M a year Washnigton DC lobbying budget on ICANN to see there are no new TLDs to protect it's trademarks. If there is to be any progress in namespace expansion in the DNS it will have to come from a grassroots effort. You're waiting till IBM legitimzes this? Now whose being naive?
You're quite right it IS (or rather WAS) a typo. The only reason nobody caught it was because it wasn't a typo in the root zone it was a type in my in-addr.arpa zone for 199.166.24. Moreso, since 199.166.24.1 has multiple A records pointing to it and mutiple PTR records (yes, it's legal, really, see RFC 2181) it never affected the operation of the root zone.
Thanks muchly for catching this, I fixed it as soon as I read this. I have long hoped the
(Don't forget I'm the same guy that created alt.sex because of a typo - see http://vrx.net/richard/alt.sex.html
Since I began using this network in 1986 I've always seen the spirit of the network as cooperation not one-upmanship. But yes, there has been a .biz (one of ICANN's choices) since the mid 90's and registrations are being accepted in that tld. To go ahead and create now a .museum just to collide with ICANN's choice would not be proper IMH.
I'd like to point out that at least one ICANN board member uses one of the alternative root server systems and has for a while.
Who exactly is fragmenting the net? The
If I decide one day I'm sick of spam from Taiwan and take
To this end if some people want to support alternative root systems (as at least one ICANN board member does by running the ORSC root zone) is it really any of your business if he can see more domains than you can?
Big brother is not watching me. I'm sorry if that bothers you.
Who do we talk to around here to point http://slash.dot and http://slash.news at this site? If anybody can figure that out send mail to Simon@higgs.com.
to do about it? If you have a vision for a TLD and the way it should be run then get some people, some machines, write or borrow some software and deploy the thing. Code talks, bullshit walks.
When you get your TLD up send me the glue records at hostmaster@open-rsc.org.
The
Being outside the ICANN/US Government system means it's not subject to dangerous foolishness like the horribly flawed UDRP and silly-assed "sunrise" provision.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.a
richard@ns1.vrx.net Sat Nov 18 16:30:19 ~
% dig sux. ns
; <<>> DiG 8.1 <<>> sux. ns
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 3
;; QUERY SECTION:
;; sux, type = NS, class = IN
;; ANSWER SECTION:
sux. 2D IN NS ns1.jerky.net.
sux. 2D IN NS ns1.vrx.net.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns1.jerky.net. 1D IN A 204.57.55.100
ns1.vrx.net. 2D IN A 199.166.24.1
ns1.vrx.net. 2D IN A 216.13.76.2
;; Total query time: 2 msec
;; FROM: ns1.vrx.net to SERVER: default -- 199.166.24.1
;; WHEN: Sat Nov 18 16:30:26 2000
;; MSG SIZE sent: 21 rcvd: 118
Breaking the 3 letter barrier unleashes all sorts of problems and confusion
You mean like
If you were at the ICANN meeting in LA or watched on ReadBadVideo you'd have noticed that the application was indeed for .air (so names like us.air, northwest.air etc could exist) but ONE ICANN board member said it was "too generic" (God forbid a Generic-Top-Level-Domain be "too generic") so the board decided it should be .aero.
Somehow US Air getting us.aero does't have quite the same cachet. If I was the TLD applicant that gave ICANN $50K to review the proposal which could have easily have cost 10X that much to write I think I'd be pretty annoyed.
Barry Shein proposed this idea on the ENIAC mailing list about 1989. There is some merit to it. I've played around a bit and found BIND8 can handle all numeric domains with no problem but BIND4 pukes, so you need a letter in there somewhere.
There is an ancilliary idea that rides on top of this which addresses what I call the ".tel" problem, and that is do we really want a single point of control/failure for all telephone numbers under IP. If that single point has anything to do with the scoundrels at the ITU then no; run screaming into the night.
What might make sense is to divide telephone number domain up with 10,000 numeric tlds to distribute the load, control and responsabillity. For example my phone number is +1 (613) 473-1719 and if you (even for a moment) point your nameserver at 199.166.24.1 then you can type http://ph-1.613.473.1719 then you'll get to my home page. Obiously this would scale to be a billion domains under 10,000 tlds.
A few years ago this would be an unthinkable horror but with contemporaty technology it's a no brainer.
If your phone number ends in 1719 and you want a domnain like this send me mail to richard@vrx.net.
There is of course no charge.
As GC is would have to answer out of band names. If you're serious about running .hom and would like me to include it in the ORSC root send me the namesevers for that zone. I can arrange secondaries for you if you like
Just send me mail.
richard@a.root-servers.orsc
richard@the.web
richard@chrono.faq
richard@dns.news
richard@vrx.net
A proof of concept to add new TLDS? Excuse me byt new tlds get added all the time. Ah, but you say those are cctlds. Well, guess what, there is a move underfoot to declare generic tlds such as .nu, .tv, .to etc as generic tlds. So in reality new tlds get added all the time.
Now, of the 258+ cctlds currently in the root how many had to pass muster for technical, business or adminisrative criteria? None. How many started with massive amounts of capital for marketing? None. How many have failed? None.
See, if you're registering into top level domains people are sending you money. When all you have to so is stick two lines of text into a tld zone file for each domain and you get paid to do that it's difficult to imagine how any failure scenario is possible - to say nothing of the fact that if ICANN says "ok, you get a TLD" I have little doubt the VC swine come closing in for the kill.
Hell, look at one of Esther's investments: agency.com. It was started with $80 and will do something on the order of millions if not billions this year.
There do indeed need to be finite limits on the number of TLDs, but they are extremely large numbers. Even our most ardent critics now state publically that it's well over 10,000.
root@ns1.vrx.net Sat Nov 18 13:09:37 /home/majordom/lists
# dig here. ns
; > DiG 8.1 > here. ns
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 2
;; QUERY SECTION:
;; here, type = NS, class = IN
;; ANSWER SECTION:
here. 1d23h46m40s IN NS NS1.BEACHSHORE.NET.
here. 1d23h46m40s IN NS NS1.QUASAR.NET.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
NS1.BEACHSHORE.NET. 6D IN A 199.166.31.250
NS1.QUASAR.NET. 6D IN A 199.166.31.3
;; Total query time: 2 msec
;; FROM: ns1.vrx.net to SERVER: default -- 199.166.24.1
;; WHEN: Sat Nov 18 13:09:40 2000
;; MSG SIZE sent: 22 rcvd: 111
Hi; I run the aforementione rogue root server cluster and I can't spell rogue either on any given day but I can spell alternative and that' what I usually call it. I've been doing this for about 5 years now and survived such unmitigated disasters as the Kashopureff era Alternic (RIP) having Dave Crocker send the police to my door and being told by Becky Burr that "we have no problems with alternative roots, we just don't think they're practical". They're apparantly so not practical that there is language in the DOC/NSI cooperative agreement that says "NSI will never run an alternative server". It sure is sweet of Becky to prevent NSI from doing something impractical. Here are some pointers.
If you want to get an overview of our ideas go here http://www.open-rsc.org/
If you want to see our thoughts on the horribly flawed sunrise provision go here http://sunrise.open-rsc.org/
If you want to find how to support or implement the ORSC root go here http://support.open-rsc.org/
If you want to read some alleged words of wisdom go here http://www.open-rsc.org/essays/
If you want to see who is behind this go here http://www.open-rsc.org/about/who/
If you want an easy way to upgrade a windoes bx to use the ORSC root go here http://www.open-rsc.org/setdns/
If you run UNIX (and of course you shoud) and want a root zone you can just plonk down into your config, or just want to read our root zone go here ftp://dns.vrx.net/pub/db.root
We're always looking for people who want to offer alternative stub resolvers for public access. Write to me at richard@dns.list or richard@vrx.net if you want to help or just want more information. I don't really do phone but if you want to call my number is in whois.
Why am I doing this? Well, two reasons. First, I've caused enough trouble on usenet (I, um, sorta created alt.sex) and figure it was time to move on and get on other peoples faces and second Brian Reid convinved me it was a good idea and I always do what Brian says. You should to.
There is a great temptation to paint all the alternative root/tld/stub servers red so they truly are rougue servers. Can anybody suggest a Pantone(TM) color?
IOD attended a meeting with IANA in 1996 and was told to deploy the .web registry and charge for registrations. To it's great credit some members of the board (Cerf, Fockler, that Linda woman and smoebody else) said they felt uncomfortable giving .web to somebody else knowing IOD had been pioneering this effort for 4 years. They still had a couple of reservations about IOD app and decided to "reserve" .web for future consideration but were not prepared to give it to the NSI/register.com backed Afilias consortium.
.web to Afilias. Bulldog Cerf stood up to them though in a remarkable display of cojones and .web is safe - for now.
If you watch the RealVideo of this event you'll see ICANN "Staph" (Joe Sims in particular) fighting long and hard to manipulate the board to give
Aurbach "How I would decide TLDS if I were seated"s p?s=cyber&dir=icann&file=icann-111500&star t=10-31-32
s p?s=cyber&dir=icann&file=icann-111500&star t=10-35-51
s p?s=cyber&dir=icann&file=icann-111500&star t=10-39-10
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.a
Me: ".XXX"
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.a
Peter Dengate Thrush: "We (cctlds) may look for other root servers"
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.a
Esther Dysan, when asked in the first ICANN meeting two years ago in Boston told us that she was picked by Roger Cochettu of IBM (now a VP of NSI oops "verisgn") and Ira Magaziner. This is particularly loathsme as throughout ther next year at IFWP ("International Meetings for the White Paper") meetings in Restin, Geneva and Singapore each meeting was opened by Ira who kept asserting "you people have to decide the structure and pick the board". There was supposed to be a rourth *wrap up* meeting of IFWP where all the consensus points from these metings were to be rolled into a final set of documents that were to be the incorporation of "newco" and board members were to be picked by the comunity. But that fourth meeting eas scuttled by non other than Mike Roberts who was there as head of EDUCAUSE but who had already been told queitly "don't worry, we already have a board and you get to be prez". So we were sandbagged by Ira Magaziner just coming down from a jag of being sued over the health care debacle. Where are then now? Well, Ira has formed an Internet consultancy with Paul Twomey the had of ICANN's aptly named GAC ("Government advisory committee".)
Have interest will conflict.
Bor am I confused. I thought icann.ad.nausum was a shoe in.
Once a year seems like a safe bet, that's IF the Department of Commerce takes their suggestion to add the current new tlds that's IF theyt survice the negition round with "staph". Remember, ICANN has no authority to add new TLDs. Only the Department of Commerce does.
There is no technical limit to the number of new tlds. There are operational contrasints however: you'd better have OC48's on the root servers if you get much about several million tlds. Other than that it just scales away merrily.
...along with the dirt museam and the Amish quilt museum Intercourse Pennsylvania.
I see a great need.
Karl Aurbach, the newly elected ICANN board member has workd with a couple of people and tested over a million tlds. It works just fine. You can reach karl at karl@the.web.
The intellectual property community does not see a need for new tlds. If you watch the ICANN meeting in RealVideo you can see which people sitting up at the front are pawn of the trademark wonks and which ones actually have some backbone.
If you survey the DNS landscape you'll notice that there is a worldwide trend away from multi level domains as all the cctlds scramble to do away with this.that.the-other.cctld. They're dropping like flies. I postulate .com did so well because you could get anything-you-want.com.
Domains seem to work best verb adjective noun.
Verb is like "goto"
A trademark has to be a adjective and has to have a noun. This is how you get many trademarks in different categories.