A TLD for a chocolate bar? Pardon me while I giggle uncontrollably.
.DOT was the vesy first new tld. Go ask the Chris.
on
ICANN Meetings
·
· Score: 1
richard@ns1.vrx.net Sat Nov 11 10:53:13 ~
% dig dot txt
; > DiG 8.1 > dot txt
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 3, ADDITIONAL: 3
;; QUERY SECTION:
;; dot, type = TXT, class = IN
;; ANSWER SECTION:
dot. 6D IN TXT "Christian@Nielsen.NET, Feb 96"
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
dot. 6D IN NS AARDVARK.WR.UMIST.AC.UK.
dot. 6D IN NS NS1.OP.net.
dot. 6D IN NS matterhorn.nielsen.net.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
AARDVARK.WR.UMIST.AC.UK. 1d23h46m40s IN A 130.88.146.3
NS1.OP.net. 1d23h46m40s IN A 209.152.193.4
matterhorn.nielsen.net. 1d23h59m49s IN A 216.32.171.152
;; Total query time: 3 msec
;; FROM: ns1.vrx.net to SERVER: default -- 199.166.24.1
;; WHEN: Sat Nov 11 10:53:24 2000
;; MSG SIZE sent: 21 rcvd: 205
The internet is conrtolled at the edges, not at the center. Succeed from the US Government controlled root server system. Roll yer own rootserver. See http://support.open-rsc.org
Henry Spencer at UTZOO kept all of usenet on tape. These tapes went to weber@ucsd then magi@uwo.edu and somebody (it might have been me) got them tpo Brewster@archive.org. I've been trynig to find a post I made in 88/89 and so far nobody has made these online and available for public searching.
I think Henry's tapes go back to '80 or '82. Brewster is very good at makinf them available; these is a couple of years of gaps. Deja has them but won't share. I think 91-92 is the missing bit.
New TLDs outside the "system" - redux
on
Pirate DNS?
·
· Score: 2
I'm glad to see an inreased awareness and interest in domain names "outside" the "system". The "system" of course being the horribly inept and corrupt ICANN process.
The DNS landscape is littered with aborted attempts to do this: Alternic, EDNS, uDNS and other good ideas that turnd sour. As of today the only efforts that still exist are ORSC (which can trace it's roots back to the original "new domains" mailing list 5 years ago ("newdom", see http://www.newdom.com/archive), name.space, TINC (http://tinc-org.com) and Adam Todds irsc/narsc/aursc stuff.
I'm biased because I am heavily involved with ORSC but I urge people to look at all them and make your own decisions. I did and have found the Todd and name.space do "not play well with others". TINC is an exception; they're cool and have a major clue. Where we disasgree witht them is TINC belives "no more than one TLD to a customer" and while we're not sure what that numebr should be, we know it's not one. So, we go our separate ways but work fairly closely.
There are a couple of errors in the orignal post I'd like to correct. First of all the venom directed at NSI is undeserved. NSI operates under a contract with the US departent of Commerce and has it's hands tied so tightly it's a wonder they can do anything at all. I'd like to point out that NSI has done more to help the alternative domain community than any other company to date.
So, I have to say NSI is not the great Satan here - the coopted US Department of Commerce is. Large three-lettered companies have spent almost a billion dolars to make sure no new tlds ever see the light of day and the DoC has it's strings pulled by these clowns - or hadn't you noticed that in almost two years of ICANN existance the only thing they've done is make big lawyers happy by implementing the UDRP that helps trademark owners ans screws the avrage domain owner. (see http://www.news.com/Perspectives/Column/0,176,459, 00.html) and have done nothing except talk about new tlds.
Worse, ICANN does not have the power to create new tlds! All they can do is make suggestions to the USG Department of Commece who actually control the legacy root zone that IANA used to own. You can verify this by reading the GAO's whitewash of ICNANs illegitimate birth where they state outright that "the DoC has no plans to hand control of the root zone over to ICNAN" at www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf)
The problem is not one of gnutella or distributed whatsits, the problem is one of education.
New tlds registries exist, and some have existed for 5 years. Alternative root servers exist and can be used by anybody.
Forget Alternic and eDNS; they're dead Jim. They once enjoyed some resonable support but now exist as names only, haveing been sold to other people for the name value (such as it is).
In conclusion, there is really no need to reinvent the wheel. If you want to play in the new domain area and outside the government controlled root zone you can do that now by pointing your nameservers away from the legacy root zone.
There's more than one way to do this, but my favorite is to secondary the ORSC root zone; in this manner you become your own root server and save one level of lookups as your server now knows where all the tld servers are.
What's (very) important to understand here is by doing this you will still be able to use com/net/org but now will also be able to see new domains such as http://lighting.faq and http://free.tibet - it's not an either/or situation.
For more information look at these urls:
ORSC Root zone: ftp://a.root-servers.orsc/pub/db.root also available via http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone/
ORSC website: http://www.open-rsc.org
How to point to new root servers: http://support.open-rsc.org/How_To/
If enough people do this we can take control of the net back from the lawyers and inept government wonks that control it now.
Don't just sit there with your thumb up a penguins butt, DO something!
NSI wants to see other new tlds
on
Pirate DNS?
·
· Score: 1
NSI is under contractual obligation by the US government NOT to add new tlds outsuide the bullshit ICANN process. I have done work for them if if they had their way they'd add new tlds in a hot second. Their reasoning is they can make lots of money selling registrations into new tlds no matter who runs the actual registry.
As a math major I appreciate the artistry and science of all this but I havn't been paid to do much math programming in the 28 years I've hacked code. If I were asked what the most usefull-neat-cool algorithms I've seen and *used* were I'd have to say 1) The boyer-moore string search algorithm and 2) the (unnamed) adaptive list search algorith where you move up an item you've found in a list by one slot if it's the one you've searched for. There's also a really cool adaptive servo algorithm out there somewhere that let even a lowly Z-80 run rings around 16 bit processors using more conventional algorithms.
ASIAN GROUP MOVES AWAY FROM SETTLEMENT PLAN FOR INTERNET
Commercial entities rather than govts. should set compensation for interconnecting Internet traffic, Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference ministerial meeting in Cancun agreed Fri., but only after tough negotiations. Agreement signals regional support for U.S. position that compensation for interconnecting Internet traffic should be decided by commercial negotiations, rather than govts.
ITU study group's recommendation that Australian govt. has backed, at apparent urging of Telstra, still is expected to be on agenda of ITU World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly in Montreal, which starts in late Sept. Ensuring that that doesn't move beyond draft recommendation stage remains significant priority for Commercial Internet eXchange Assn., Public Policy Dir. Eric Lee said. Opposition to draft recommendation has emerged among English-speaking countries and the Netherlands, he said. "There was no sort of precedent for this," he said. Lee said that even one of Australian study group members who backed draft acknowledged "that it was not possible to track various cost components." APEC language appears to be "helpful" but questions remain about how issue will be resolved, Lee said. "Clearly, we would like to leave it up to the commercial sector to resolve because international settlement regimes are never as fully up to date with technology and financial issues," he said.
APEC principles that emerged from last week's conference appear to move regional group away from international settlement system Australians have been backing, which has sparked opposition by U.S. and others. APEC language diverges sharply from draft ITU study group recommendation that would impose international settlement system now in place for voice telephony on Internet traffic. One U.S. official said Australia still is expected to back draft recommendation in ITU, although APEC text is significant because it shows lack of regional support for that stance. "In this particular venue, it shows that there wasn't that much support," source said.
Language that emerged from ministerial meeting is reaction to ITU study group recommendation that administrations that provide international Internet connections negotiate bilateral arrangements for compensating each other for cost of carrying traffic that each generates. U.S., Canada, Netherlands, Russia and U.K. have expressed opposition to plan, although April Study Group 3 memo had indicated that other European countries hadn't expressed concern.
Specifically, APEC principles reached at Ministerial Meeting on Telecommunications and Information Industry says: "Internet connectivity is an essential element of the global information infrastructure." Earlier text that had been part of negotiations had cast Internet connectivity as "integrated" rather than "essential" element of this international infrastructure. While only one word is changed in final text, distinction is important because "integrated" could have meant that Internet traffic could be considered part of basic telecommunications, govt. official said. That would have meant that Internet traffic could have been considered under discussions of regulated services, including potentially international settlement rates.
Importantly, principles reached at ministerial meeting also stipulate that "governments need not intervene in private business arrangements on international charging agreements for Internet services achieved in a competitive environment, but where there are dominant players or de facto monopolies, governments must play a role in promoting fair competition." In part, message here is "let the private sector work it out," govt. official said. The principles also underscores that Internet charging agreements between network service providers "should be commercially negotiated." -- Mary Greczyn *********
The secondary nameserver isn't pulling the zone from the primary. So it'll work - ot not - on a random basis. Use the IP address (195.7.186.68) until they fix it.
Here's the relevant diagnostics:
% dig ru ns
; > DiG 8.1 > ru ns ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 7, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 7 ;; QUERY SECTION: ;; ru, type = NS, class = IN
;; ANSWER SECTION: ru. 2D IN NS NS.EU.NET. ru. 2D IN NS NS.RIPN.NET. ru. 2D IN NS NS.RELCOM.EU.NET. ru. 2D IN NS NS2.RIPN.NET. ru. 2D IN NS SUNIC.SUNET.SE. ru. 2D IN NS NS.UU.NET. ru. 2D IN NS NS2.NIC.FR.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: NS.EU.NET. 2D IN A 192.16.202.11 NS.RIPN.NET. 2D IN A 194.85.119.1 NS.RELCOM.EU.NET. 2D IN A 193.124.23.3 NS2.RIPN.NET. 2D IN A 195.209.0.6 SUNIC.SUNET.SE. 2D IN A 192.36.125.2 NS.UU.NET. 2D IN A 137.39.1.3 NS2.NIC.FR. 2D IN A 192.93.0.4
richard@ns1.vrx.net Mon May 1 00:40:25 ~ % dig mguk.ru ns
; > DiG 8.1 > mguk.ru 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: ;; mguk.ru, type = NS, class = IN
;; ANSWER SECTION: mguk.ru. 21h31m42s IN NS ns.mguk.ru. mguk.ru. 21h31m42s IN NS ns.transts.ru.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: ns.mguk.ru. 23h51m17s IN A 195.7.186.66 ns.transts.ru. 23h51m17s IN A 195.7.176.5
;; Total query time: 3 msec ;; FROM: ns1.vrx.net to SERVER: default -- 199.166.24.1 ;; WHEN: Mon May 1 00:40:37 2000 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 25 rcvd: 101
% host -l mguk.ru mguk.ru name server ns.mguk.ru mf.mguk.ru has address 195.7.186.68 ftp.mf.mguk.ru has address 195.7.186.68 www.mf.mguk.ru has address 195.7.186.68 lyrics.mguk.ru has address 195.7.186.68 www.lyrics.mguk.ru has address 195.7.186.68 career.mguk.ru has address 195.7.186.68 localhost.mguk.ru has address 127.0.0.1 mail.mguk.ru has address 195.7.186.67 www.mguk.ru has address 195.7.186.67 students.mguk.ru has address 195.7.186.68
richard@ns1.vrx.net Mon May 1 00:45:21 ~ % dig lyrics.mguk.ru a @ns.mguk.ru
; > DiG 8.1 > lyrics.mguk.ru a @ns.mguk.ru ; (1 server found) ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 10 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; QUERY SECTION: ;; lyrics.mguk.ru, type = A, class = IN
;; ANSWER SECTION: lyrics.mguk.ru. 1D IN A 195.7.186.68
;; AUTHORITY SECTION: mguk.ru. 1D IN NS ns.mguk.ru.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: ns.mguk.ru. 1D IN A 195.7.186.66
;; Total query time: 197 msec ;; FROM: ns1.vrx.net to SERVER: ns.mguk.ru 195.7.186.66 ;; WHEN: Mon May 1 00:45:27 2000 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 32 rcvd: 88
richard@ns1.vrx.net Mon May 1 00:46:17 ~ % dig lyrics.mguk.ru a @ns.transts.ru
; > DiG 8.1 > lyrics.mguk.ru a @ns.transts.ru ; (1 server found) ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 10 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUERY SECTION: ;; lyrics.mguk.ru, type = A, class = IN
;; AUTHORITY SECTION: mguk.ru. 1D IN SOA ns.mguk.ru. hut.chat.ru. ( 2000202100 ; serial 8H ; refresh 4H ; retry 1W ; expiry 1D ) ; minimum
;; Total query time: 177 msec ;; FROM: ns1.vrx.net to SERVER: ns.transts.ru 195.7.176.5 ;; WHEN: Mon May 1 00:46:28 2000 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 32 rcvd: 87 ns.mguk.ru has address 195.7.186.66
Because the registrars lobbied hard and paid well to inject themselves into the process. They provide a valuable service, to be sure, but it should not be mandatory IMHO. All they are now is a regulated sales channel for NSI who is laughing all the way to the bank as.com registrations are at an all time high on the order of a million new regs a month. Anybody remember when all ISP's were registrars?
ICANN didn't screw up, it didn't do anything - it's like that.
A bug crept into the NSI SRS system that allowed trailing dash domain names. So the registrars registered a bunch of them.
If you read the RFC's very carefully (or see ISC's posting to.domains on usenet) you'll see a trailing dash domain is *not* illegal. But it cannot be the taget of an A, NS or MX record, so hile not illegal it's not usable, either.
IMO, things like this are not newsworthy. The real screwing to be had is by the trademark contingency. That'll keep us plenty busy this year... and next, probably, as we begin to see some egregous abuses inder the ICANN UDRP and WIPO.
Yup, that's our Ira. About 2 years ago, he met will all the playwers it the new domain game. All of the. He wanted to meet them personally to feel them out.
His idea was to work a compromise so nobosy got what they wanted, but everybody could live with it. This was the "green paper" that said there'd be 5 new top level domains right away.
The trademark poeple and one hotshot in the EU (Christopher Wilkinson) made a huge deal out of this, and the successor to the green paper - the "white paper" took out those 5 new TLDs, gave us greater TM control and gave us the ICANN board.
I don't think Ira is too terrible. Now, Becky Burr at the Department of Commerce NTIA that is administering ICANN - there's a piece of work.
I was told the following story by an NSF staffer:
When the US Government Interagency Task Force was meeting to decide what to do about the domain issue, Commerce kept telling everybody they had all the answers, so, eveyrbody said "great, YOU handle it then" and are now laughing their asses off as Commerce mismanges this thing into the ground.
The Internet is not a public utility. It's not a public network. If it was, it would be subject to regulation by the International Telecommunicatrions Union (ITU.INT).
Instead it's an enhanced data service. This lets it go around the legal framework surrounding internatinal networks.
In other words the net is a collection of private networks. You own yours, I own mine. Together we agree to use TCP/IP to interoperate.
The "ruling class" of the Internet is the collection of all people that own networks and servers. Government, in any form doesn't come into it in anyw ay shape or form.
You want to hand the net over to world Governments like the UN or to ICANN's "Government Advisory Committee" (the aptly named "GAC"). Now, when the GAC "advises" ICANN, how much weight do you suppose ICANN will place on "advice" rendered by the governments of the world compared to us lowly users?
Render unto me a fucking break. ICANN is non profit ?
Joe Sims, an attorney in Los Angeles offered Jon Postel some free legal advice. He then went on to set up ICANN and the board. ICANN admitteed yesterday they owe him $500,000 of their $800,000.00 debt.
Lessee, he picks the board, then they pick him to do their very expensive legal work. Jon Postel did all this on under a million a year with no legal, budget. Heloooooo?
OTOH, ICANN flys all over the world and stays in 5 Star hotels. Non-profits with 10 board members racking up $5000 a night in lodging alone is typical of the abuses non-profits suffer from. Other problems are: lack of accountability (who are these guys accountable to? Nobody except the Congress of the United States and the California State Attorney General) and legitimacy - does the NTIA have the authority to turn off an American publicly traded company (NSI) a.
Then there is the question of legitimacy. The US Government white paper said the newco that manages names and numbers will result from Internet self organization. While Ira Magaziner was saying this to us in far away places like Geneva and Singapore where a bunch of us traveled to attend IFWP conferences, he was running around with big business picking a board that doesn't have a clue how the net works, and included one IAHC committee memeber and Mike Roberts, who is as good as.
We were told they were selected because they had no previous involvement in the DNS.
Right. Read Esthers book and see how uninvolved you think she is.
I've been involved in this for 3 years before ICANN was created and don't consider myselt uneducated. As an advocate of a cost-recovery model for TLD management I am not looking for a windfall, and I DON'T think the USG should control the Interent.
ICANN is a bad thing. A REALLY bad thing. It represents nothing less than a global psuedo-government regulatory agency - this was tried wth OSI and failed miserably.
Forget NSI - that't not your bigegst problem and will correct itself when true competition comes about - new top level domains, not just a bunch of new sales agents for NSI which is all these registrars are.
To say nothing of the fact the TM abuses that can occur because names are now $9 to registrars
Do a whois on intel-inc.com for example. $9 gets you the right to buldgeon Intel.
Esther is a very nice lady. I enjoy very much the time I spent with her - short though it may be - she is very, very busy.
She is no dount an expert on telling VC companies what to invest in but IMO she doesn't have a good grasp of the legal and administrative framework that the net operates under. The net looks very different from a 5th avenue Penthouse.
Look up her achievments on the net. Thats's what she's done.
She has admitted Ira Magaziner and IBM's VP Roger Cochetti picked her for ICANN, and I suspect they did so for her celebrity status and connections.
The.DOT top level domain was the first "rogue" to level domain and was created on the Usenet2 mailing list about 5 years ago. It exists today and many root server confederations support it.
If you want your own tld in general, first pass the clue test - set it up. Then petition the various root server confederations to carry it.
Slashdot Mirror
What advantage is law.pro over law.com?
A TLD for a chocolate bar? Pardon me while I giggle uncontrollably.
richard@ns1.vrx.net Sat Nov 11 10:53:13 ~
% dig dot txt
; > DiG 8.1 > dot txt
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 3, ADDITIONAL: 3
;; QUERY SECTION:
;; dot, type = TXT, class = IN
;; ANSWER SECTION:
dot. 6D IN TXT "Christian@Nielsen.NET, Feb 96"
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
dot. 6D IN NS AARDVARK.WR.UMIST.AC.UK.
dot. 6D IN NS NS1.OP.net.
dot. 6D IN NS matterhorn.nielsen.net.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
AARDVARK.WR.UMIST.AC.UK. 1d23h46m40s IN A 130.88.146.3
NS1.OP.net. 1d23h46m40s IN A 209.152.193.4
matterhorn.nielsen.net. 1d23h59m49s IN A 216.32.171.152
;; Total query time: 3 msec
;; FROM: ns1.vrx.net to SERVER: default -- 199.166.24.1
;; WHEN: Sat Nov 11 10:53:24 2000
;; MSG SIZE sent: 21 rcvd: 205
The internet is conrtolled at the edges, not at the center. Succeed from the US Government controlled root server system. Roll yer own rootserver. See http://support.open-rsc.org
Henry Spencer at UTZOO kept all of usenet on tape. These tapes went to weber@ucsd then magi@uwo.edu
and somebody (it might have been me) got them tpo Brewster@archive.org. I've been trynig to find a post I made in 88/89 and so far nobody has made these online and available for public searching.
I think Henry's tapes go back to '80 or '82. Brewster is very good at makinf them available; these is a couple of years of gaps. Deja has them but won't share. I think 91-92 is the missing bit.
The DNS landscape is littered with aborted attempts to do this: Alternic, EDNS, uDNS and other good ideas that turnd sour. As of today the only efforts that still exist are ORSC (which can trace it's roots back to the original "new domains" mailing list 5 years ago ("newdom", see http://www.newdom.com/archive), name.space, TINC (http://tinc-org.com) and Adam Todds irsc/narsc/aursc stuff.
I'm biased because I am heavily involved with ORSC but I urge people to look at all them and make your own decisions. I did and have found the Todd and name.space do "not play well with others". TINC is an exception; they're cool and have a major clue. Where we disasgree witht them is TINC belives "no more than one TLD to a customer" and while we're not sure what that numebr should be, we know it's not one. So, we go our separate ways but work fairly closely.
There are a couple of errors in the orignal post I'd like to correct. First of all the venom directed at NSI is undeserved. NSI operates under a contract with the US departent of Commerce and has it's hands tied so tightly it's a wonder they can do anything at all. I'd like to point out that NSI has done more to help the alternative domain community than any other company to date.
So, I have to say NSI is not the great Satan here - the coopted US Department of Commerce is. Large three-lettered companies have spent almost a billion dolars to make sure no new tlds ever see the light of day and the DoC has it's strings pulled by these clowns - or hadn't you noticed that in almost two years of ICANN existance the only thing they've done is make big lawyers happy by implementing the UDRP that helps trademark owners ans screws the avrage domain owner. (see http://www.news.com/Perspectives/Column/0,176,459, 00.html) and have done nothing except talk about new tlds.
Worse, ICANN does not have the power to create new tlds! All they can do is make suggestions to the USG Department of Commece who actually control the legacy root zone that IANA used to own. You can verify this by reading the GAO's whitewash of ICNANs illegitimate birth where they state outright that "the DoC has no plans to hand control of the root zone over to ICNAN" at www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf)
The problem is not one of gnutella or distributed whatsits, the problem is one of education.
New tlds registries exist, and some have existed for 5 years. Alternative root servers exist and can be used by anybody.
Forget Alternic and eDNS; they're dead Jim. They once enjoyed some resonable support but now exist as names only, haveing been sold to other people for the name value (such as it is).
In conclusion, there is really no need to reinvent the wheel. If you want to play in the new domain area and outside the government controlled root zone you can do that now by pointing your nameservers away from the legacy root zone.
There's more than one way to do this, but my favorite is to secondary the ORSC root zone; in this manner you become your own root server and save one level of lookups as your server now knows where all the tld servers are.
What's (very) important to understand here is by doing this you will still be able to use com/net/org but now will also be able to see new domains such as http://lighting.faq and http://free.tibet - it's not an either/or situation.
For more information look at these urls:
- ORSC Root zone: ftp://a.root-servers.orsc/pub/db.root also available via http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone/
- ORSC website: http://www.open-rsc.org
- How to point to new root servers: http://support.open-rsc.org/How_To/
- ORSC mailing lists: http://www.open-rsc.org/lists/
If enough people do this we can take control of the net back from the lawyers and inept government wonks that control it now.Don't just sit there with your thumb up a penguins butt, DO something!
NSI is under contractual obligation by the US government NOT to add new tlds outsuide the bullshit ICANN process. I have done work for them if if they had their way they'd add new tlds in a hot second. Their reasoning is they can make lots of money selling registrations into new tlds no matter who runs the actual registry.
http://www.open-rsc.org/essays/feld/yokamede.html
If we have to make an instruction set immortal why
couldn't it be something sensible like the PDP 11?
As a math major I appreciate the artistry and science of all this but I havn't been paid to do much math programming in the 28 years I've hacked code. If I were asked what the most usefull-neat-cool algorithms I've seen and *used* were I'd have to say 1) The boyer-moore string search algorithm and 2) the (unnamed) adaptive list search algorith where you move up an item you've found in a list by one slot if it's the one you've searched for. There's also a really cool adaptive servo algorithm out there somewhere that let even a lowly Z-80 run rings around 16 bit processors using more conventional algorithms.
Now THOSE were elegant... and usefull.
Govt. Role Rejected
ASIAN GROUP MOVES AWAY FROM SETTLEMENT PLAN FOR INTERNET
Commercial entities rather than govts. should
set compensation for interconnecting Internet
traffic, Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation
Conference ministerial meeting in Cancun agreed
Fri., but only after tough negotiations.
Agreement signals regional support for U.S.
position that compensation for interconnecting
Internet traffic should be decided by commercial
negotiations, rather than govts.
ITU study group's recommendation that
Australian govt. has backed, at apparent urging of
Telstra, still is expected to be on agenda of ITU
World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly
in Montreal, which starts in late Sept. Ensuring
that that doesn't move beyond draft recommendation
stage remains significant priority for Commercial
Internet eXchange Assn., Public Policy Dir. Eric
Lee said. Opposition to draft recommendation has
emerged among English-speaking countries and the
Netherlands, he said. "There was no sort of
precedent for this," he said. Lee said that even
one of Australian study group members who backed
draft acknowledged "that it was not possible to
track various cost components." APEC language
appears to be "helpful" but questions remain about
how issue will be resolved, Lee said. "Clearly,
we would like to leave it up to the commercial
sector to resolve because international settlement
regimes are never as fully up to date with
technology and financial issues," he said.
APEC principles that emerged from last week's
conference appear to move regional group away from
international settlement system Australians have
been backing, which has sparked opposition by U.S.
and others. APEC language diverges sharply from
draft ITU study group recommendation that would
impose international settlement system now in
place for voice telephony on Internet traffic.
One U.S. official said Australia still is expected
to back draft recommendation in ITU, although APEC
text is significant because it shows lack of
regional support for that stance. "In this
particular venue, it shows that there wasn't that
much support," source said.
Language that emerged from ministerial
meeting is reaction to ITU study group
recommendation that administrations that provide
international Internet connections negotiate
bilateral arrangements for compensating each other
for cost of carrying traffic that each generates.
U.S., Canada, Netherlands, Russia and U.K. have
expressed opposition to plan, although April Study
Group 3 memo had indicated that other European
countries hadn't expressed concern.
Specifically, APEC principles reached at
Ministerial Meeting on Telecommunications and
Information Industry says: "Internet connectivity
is an essential element of the global information
infrastructure." Earlier text that had been part
of negotiations had cast Internet connectivity as
"integrated" rather than "essential" element of
this international infrastructure. While only one
word is changed in final text, distinction is
important because "integrated" could have meant
that Internet traffic could be considered part of
basic telecommunications, govt. official said.
That would have meant that Internet traffic could
have been considered under discussions of
regulated services, including potentially
international settlement rates.
Importantly, principles reached at
ministerial meeting also stipulate that
"governments need not intervene in private
business arrangements on international charging
agreements for Internet services achieved in a
competitive environment, but where there are
dominant players or de facto monopolies,
governments must play a role in promoting fair
competition." In part, message here is "let the
private sector work it out," govt. official said.
The principles also underscores that Internet
charging agreements between network service
providers "should be commercially negotiated." --
Mary Greczyn *********
The secondary nameserver isn't pulling the zone
from the primary. So it'll work - ot not - on a
random basis. Use the IP address (195.7.186.68)
until they fix it.
Here's the relevant diagnostics:
% dig ru ns
; > DiG 8.1 > ru ns
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 7, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 7
;; QUERY SECTION:
;; ru, type = NS, class = IN
;; ANSWER SECTION:
ru. 2D IN NS NS.EU.NET.
ru. 2D IN NS NS.RIPN.NET.
ru. 2D IN NS NS.RELCOM.EU.NET.
ru. 2D IN NS NS2.RIPN.NET.
ru. 2D IN NS SUNIC.SUNET.SE.
ru. 2D IN NS NS.UU.NET.
ru. 2D IN NS NS2.NIC.FR.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
NS.EU.NET. 2D IN A 192.16.202.11
NS.RIPN.NET. 2D IN A 194.85.119.1
NS.RELCOM.EU.NET. 2D IN A 193.124.23.3
NS2.RIPN.NET. 2D IN A 195.209.0.6
SUNIC.SUNET.SE. 2D IN A 192.36.125.2
NS.UU.NET. 2D IN A 137.39.1.3
NS2.NIC.FR. 2D IN A 192.93.0.4
richard@ns1.vrx.net Mon May 1 00:40:25 ~
% dig mguk.ru ns
; > DiG 8.1 > mguk.ru 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:
;; mguk.ru, type = NS, class = IN
;; ANSWER SECTION:
mguk.ru. 21h31m42s IN NS ns.mguk.ru.
mguk.ru. 21h31m42s IN NS ns.transts.ru.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns.mguk.ru. 23h51m17s IN A 195.7.186.66
ns.transts.ru. 23h51m17s IN A 195.7.176.5
;; Total query time: 3 msec
;; FROM: ns1.vrx.net to SERVER: default -- 199.166.24.1
;; WHEN: Mon May 1 00:40:37 2000
;; MSG SIZE sent: 25 rcvd: 101
% host -l mguk.ru
mguk.ru name server ns.mguk.ru
mf.mguk.ru has address 195.7.186.68
ftp.mf.mguk.ru has address 195.7.186.68
www.mf.mguk.ru has address 195.7.186.68
lyrics.mguk.ru has address 195.7.186.68
www.lyrics.mguk.ru has address 195.7.186.68
career.mguk.ru has address 195.7.186.68
localhost.mguk.ru has address 127.0.0.1
mail.mguk.ru has address 195.7.186.67
www.mguk.ru has address 195.7.186.67
students.mguk.ru has address 195.7.186.68
richard@ns1.vrx.net Mon May 1 00:45:21 ~
% dig lyrics.mguk.ru a @ns.mguk.ru
; > DiG 8.1 > lyrics.mguk.ru a @ns.mguk.ru
; (1 server found)
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 10
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; QUERY SECTION:
;; lyrics.mguk.ru, type = A, class = IN
;; ANSWER SECTION:
lyrics.mguk.ru. 1D IN A 195.7.186.68
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
mguk.ru. 1D IN NS ns.mguk.ru.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns.mguk.ru. 1D IN A 195.7.186.66
;; Total query time: 197 msec
;; FROM: ns1.vrx.net to SERVER: ns.mguk.ru 195.7.186.66
;; WHEN: Mon May 1 00:45:27 2000
;; MSG SIZE sent: 32 rcvd: 88
richard@ns1.vrx.net Mon May 1 00:46:17 ~
% dig lyrics.mguk.ru a @ns.transts.ru
; > DiG 8.1 > lyrics.mguk.ru a @ns.transts.ru
; (1 server found)
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 10
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUERY SECTION:
;; lyrics.mguk.ru, type = A, class = IN
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
mguk.ru. 1D IN SOA ns.mguk.ru. hut.chat.ru. (
2000202100 ; serial
8H ; refresh
4H ; retry
1W ; expiry
1D ) ; minimum
;; Total query time: 177 msec
;; FROM: ns1.vrx.net to SERVER: ns.transts.ru 195.7.176.5
;; WHEN: Mon May 1 00:46:28 2000
;; MSG SIZE sent: 32 rcvd: 87
ns.mguk.ru has address 195.7.186.66
Because the registrars lobbied hard and paid well to inject themselves into the process. They provide a valuable service, to be sure, but it should not be mandatory IMHO. All they are now is a regulated sales channel for NSI who is laughing all the way to the bank as .com registrations
are at an all time high on the order of a million new regs a month. Anybody remember when all ISP's were registrars?
IMO, things like this are not newsworthy. The real screwing to be had is by the trademark contingency. That'll keep us plenty busy this year ... and next, probably, as we begin to see some egregous abuses inder the ICANN UDRP and WIPO.
It's not responding at all now.
Comments lie. Code never lies.
The Internet is not a public utility. It's
not a public network. If it was, it would
be subject to regulation by the International
Telecommunicatrions Union (ITU.INT).
Instead it's an enhanced data service. This
lets it go around the legal framework
surrounding internatinal networks.
In other words the net is a collection
of private networks. You own yours, I
own mine. Together we agree to use TCP/IP
to interoperate.
The "ruling class" of the Internet is the
collection of all people that own networks
and servers. Government, in any form doesn't
come into it in anyw ay shape or form.
You want to hand the net over to world
Governments like the UN or to ICANN's
"Government Advisory Committee" (the
aptly named "GAC"). Now, when the GAC
"advises" ICANN, how much weight do you
suppose ICANN will place on "advice" rendered
by the governments of the world compared
to us lowly users?
Render unto me a fucking break. ICANN is non
profit ?
Joe Sims, an attorney in Los Angeles offered Jon
Postel some free legal advice. He then went on
to set up ICANN and the board. ICANN admitteed
yesterday they owe him $500,000 of their
$800,000.00 debt.
Lessee, he picks the board, then they pick him
to do their very expensive legal work. Jon
Postel did all this on under a million a year
with no legal, budget. Heloooooo?
OTOH, ICANN flys all over the world and stays
in 5 Star hotels. Non-profits with 10 board
members racking up $5000 a night in lodging
alone is typical of the abuses non-profits
suffer from. Other problems are: lack of
accountability (who are these guys accountable
to? Nobody except the Congress of the United
States and the California State Attorney
General) and legitimacy - does the NTIA have
the authority to turn off an American publicly
traded company (NSI) a.
Then there is the question of legitimacy. The
US Government white paper said the newco
that manages names and numbers will result
from Internet self organization. While
Ira Magaziner was saying this to us in far
away places like Geneva and Singapore where
a bunch of us traveled to attend IFWP
conferences, he was running around with big
business picking a board that doesn't have
a clue how the net works, and included one
IAHC committee memeber and Mike Roberts,
who is as good as.
We were told they were selected because they
had no previous involvement in the DNS.
Right. Read Esthers book and see how
uninvolved you think she is.
I've been involved in this for 3 years
before ICANN was created and don't consider
myselt uneducated. As an advocate of a
cost-recovery model for TLD management I
am not looking for a windfall, and I DON'T
think the USG should control the Interent.
ICANN is a bad thing. A REALLY bad thing. It
represents nothing less than a global
psuedo-government regulatory agency - this
was tried wth OSI and failed miserably.
Forget NSI - that't not your bigegst problem
and will correct itself when true competition
comes about - new top level domains, not just
a bunch of new sales agents for NSI which is
all these registrars are.
To say nothing of the fact the TM abuses that
can occur because names are now $9 to registrars
Do a whois on intel-inc.com for example. $9
gets you the right to buldgeon Intel.
Well, thank God for competition...
mcdonalds-inc.com anybody ? $9.
Sigh. Where to begin.
0 2_freeman_dyson10.html
Esther is a very nice lady. I enjoy very much
the time I spent with her - short though it
may be - she is very, very busy.
She is no dount an expert on telling VC companies
what to invest in but IMO she doesn't have a good
grasp of the legal and administrative framework
that the net operates under. The net looks very
different from a 5th avenue Penthouse.
Look up her achievments on the net. Thats's
what she's done.
She has admitted Ira Magaziner and IBM's VP
Roger Cochetti picked her for ICANN, and
I suspect they did so for her celebrity status
and connections.
http://www.hotwired.com/collections/genetics/6.
The .DOT top level domain was the first "rogue"
to level domain and was created on the Usenet2
mailing list about 5 years ago. It exists today
and many root server confederations support it.
If you want your own tld in general, first pass
the clue test - set it up. Then petition the
various root server confederations to carry it.
Don't hold your breath for ICANN to do it.
--