---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Aug 1996 01:37:18 -0700 From: kslim@merlion.singnet.com.sg (KOON SANG LIM) Subject: FW: Shared TLD's Reinforce Existing Monopolies Dear Bob Precisely I believe the abuse came from the Exlusivity! Best regards KS Lim - ---------------Original Message--------------- On Thu, 15 Aug 1996, KOON SANG LIM wrote: > As a person I am always willing to compromise as I believe that > sometime this is the best and most practical approach. However, > for this particular issue, my worry is that the "Exclusivity" > may be abused! I am not saying that you would abuse the system > but I am quite sure that sooner or later some one would! Though > I am but one of the poor millions of users of the net, I believe > I belong to the majority. With respect the current situation, at both Internic and in many nations is a situation of "exclusivity" and abuse. What "shared" TLD's really means is allowing the current structure to become stronger not more equitable. *No* new TLD registries will form with the release of only "shared" TLD's. Only the existing Internic and other regional registries will take them up. The world will remain under various forms of domain name dictatorships. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat tor@wtv.net Director, World Televirtual Network http://www.wtv.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Aug 1996 10:44:27 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: Who "owns" tld's At 9:43 AM -0400 8/16/96, Christian Huitema wrote: >> Wouldnt it make sense to resolve this question first, >> or have we settled up a "some are private, some >> are shared" notion? > >I guess the problem here is one of time tables. Nobody has the slightest >doubt that we could run some additional non shared TLDs right now. There >are about 200 official TLDs today, there are all reasons to believe that >we could have 300 of them without hell breaking loose. The debate however >is that there are many reasons to believe that hell will indeed break >loose if we go to 3,000, let alone 300,000. > >Shared TLDs have the nice property that they could perhaps allow >competition without creating hyperinflation. But they have not be tried >yet. It may well be that the technology is OK, and we have indeed been >performing mutual exclusion and distributed access to common resources for >quite some time in other areas, but I don't know how we handle >redirections in a shared TLD without overloading the root servers. Then, >the business model for shared TLDs is not entirely clear -- how do we >resolve conflicts, how do we differentiate actors, do we need an instance >with the final say. So the most urgent action vs. shared TLD is probably >to run an experiment. Depending on the result of that experiment, the >community may or may not be convinced to proceed further. > >In between, we can also experiment with a limited set of new, not shared, >TLDs. There are again quite a few problems to solve, e.g. a practical >evaluation of the procedure to start such TLDs. Can we have order and >proper bids, or should we switch to land rush mode? I certainly prefer >order! > I think most of these issues are going to be solved without having to set anything in concrete right now. If a TLD is issued now to an exclusive registry, it'll be a pretty safe bet to expect that when the delegation term expires, the TLD will be re-assigned to multiple registries. That is exactly what everyone is expecting for .COM, .NET, .ORG, etc., so you might as well apply it to the rest of the applicable TLDs. This encourages serious long term commitments to the infrastructure, as only those who believe they can make a shared situation work will invest for the long term. The get rich quick types will fail by default. The experiment just paves the way to get it right. _____S_i_m_o_n___H_i_g_g_s_________________H_i_g_g_s___A_m_e_r_i_c_a_____ ... "I'm fine - it's the others" ......... President/CEO ................ _____e-mail: simon@higgs.com _____________ http://www.higgs.com/ ________ ... http://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-higgs-tld-cat-02.txt ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Aug 1996 10:55:30 -0700 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: Who "owns" tld's Christian Huitema allegedly said: > > > Wouldnt it make sense to resolve this question first, > > or have we settled up a "some are private, some > > are shared" notion? > > I guess the problem here is one of time tables. Nobody has the slightest > doubt that we could run some additional non shared TLDs right now. There > are about 200 official TLDs today, there are all reasons to believe that > we could have 300 of them without hell breaking loose. The debate however > is that there are many reasons to believe that hell will indeed break > loose if we go to 3,000, let alone 300,000. > > Shared TLDs have the nice property that they could perhaps allow > competition without creating hyperinflation. But they have not be tried > yet. It may well be that the technology is OK, and we have indeed been > performing mutual exclusion and distributed access to common resources for > quite some time in other areas, but I don't know how we handle > redirections in a shared TLD without overloading the root servers. Pardon my thickness, but I'm not sure what you mean by "redirections". I wonder if you could explain this point a bit more? - -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B6 04 CC 30 9E DE CD FE 6A 04 90 BB 26 77 4A 5E ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Aug 1996 11:32:33 -0700 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: Who "owns" tld's Christian Huitema allegedly said: > > On Aug 16, 10:53am, Kent Crispin wrote: > > Subject: Re: Who "owns" tld's > > > > Shared TLDs have the nice property that they could perhaps allow > > > competition without creating hyperinflation. But they have not be > tried > > > yet. It may well be that the technology is OK, and we have indeed been > > > performing mutual exclusion and distributed access to common resources > for > > > quite some time in other areas, but I don't know how we handle > > > redirections in a shared TLD without overloading the root servers. > > > > Pardon my thickness, but I'm not sure what you mean by "redirections". > > I wonder if you could explain this point a bit more? > > Name resolution. I receive a request for "foobar.shared". I have to > forward it to some server. Today, all servers listed in NS records are > supposedly equivalent, they have a full listing of the domain. Suppose we > go to a point where only one or some of them have knowledge about > "foobar.shared". As I have no way to know which one, I will very likely > pick one at random, or send the request to a root server. > > In short, it does not work with the current technology, so it means that > the "shared-tld" WG has to come out with a technical answer. Probably not > rocket science, but please spell it out. Ah. Multiple registries for a domain is a different (though obviously related and intertwined) issue from partitioned authoritative nameservers for a domain, which is what I believe you are describing. A "registry" is an entity that receives information from an end user about a desired domain name, and assuming no conflicts, assigns the domain name to the user. It does an binding, and maintains, at a minimum, whois data. It also causes the binding to be stored in DNS. That latter step may actually be brokered out to a nameserver not run by the registry. I think the only absolutely necessary record in DNS is an A record for the domain name, though some kind of reference back to the initiating registry for whois data would also be *highly* desirable. Since the actual amount of necessary data in DNS is quite small, there doesn't seem to me to be any win in inventing a redirection method -- it would be simpler to just replicate the data at every nameserver for the domain. These are just some thoughts on the subject. I am not an expert on DNS, by any means, and I would appreciate some true experts pouncing on this issue. Whatcha think? - -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B6 04 CC 30 9E DE CD FE 6A 04 90 BB 26 77 4A 5E ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Aug 1996 13:09:07 -0700 From: Dan Busarow Subject: Re: Who "owns" tld's On Fri, 16 Aug 1996, Kent Crispin wrote: > Christian Huitema allegedly said: > > Name resolution. I receive a request for "foobar.shared". I have to > > forward it to some server. Today, all servers listed in NS records are > > supposedly equivalent, they have a full listing of the domain. Both of the models advanced so far for shared TLDs retain "full service" name servers. In the distributed model there may be a small window during which some name servers know about a domain and others don't. This window would be small and only appear at domain creation/update. But DNS is not changed at all, only the method for updating the zone files changes. When you query for foo.bar the roots will return nameservers for bar. that all know about all bar. domains. > It also causes the binding to be stored in DNS. > That latter step may actually be brokered out to a nameserver not run > by the registry. I think the only absolutely necessary record in DNS > is an A record for the domain name, Actually it establishes the domain_name/nameserver binding. Absolute minimum number of DNS records for a second level is two NS records and the two coresponding A records. Couple of hundred bytes/domain. Dan - -- Dan Busarow 714 443 4172 DPC Systems dan@dpcsys.com Dana Point, California 83 09 EF 59 E0 11 89 B4 8D 09 DB FD E1 DD 0C 82 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Aug 1996 13:31:11 -0700 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: Who "owns" tld's Dan Busarow allegedly said: > > On Fri, 16 Aug 1996, Kent Crispin wrote: > > Christian Huitema allegedly said: > > > Name resolution. I receive a request for "foobar.shared". I have to > > > forward it to some server. Today, all servers listed in NS records are > > > supposedly equivalent, they have a full listing of the domain. > > Both of the models advanced so far for shared TLDs retain "full service" > name servers. In the distributed model there may be a small window > during which some name servers know about a domain and others don't. > This window would be small and only appear at domain creation/update. > > But DNS is not changed at all, only the method for updating the zone files > changes. When you query for foo.bar the roots will return nameservers for > bar. that all know about all bar. domains. > > > It also causes the binding to be stored in DNS. > > That latter step may actually be brokered out to a nameserver not run > > by the registry. I think the only absolutely necessary record in DNS > > is an A record for the domain name, > > Actually it establishes the domain_name/nameserver binding. Absolute > minimum number of DNS records for a second level is two NS records and the > two coresponding A records. Couple of hundred bytes/domain. > > Dan Of course. Sorry. I slipped a cog. Won't be the last time. :-) - -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B6 04 CC 30 9E DE CD FE 6A 04 90 BB 26 77 4A 5E ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Aug 1996 14:40:29 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Break Monopolies At 8:03 AM -0400 8/15/96, Bob Allisat wrote: > If the RFC explicitly > recognizes various new > Non-Shared TLD's shortly > following it's release > a flock of new TLD registries > will be created to compete > with national and Internic > registries. That will > effectively and permanently > eliminate their monopoly. > This is pure genius Bob. How does creating more monopolies solve the existing problem? This is exactly the same as using gasoline to extinguish a fire. > The irony of the whole > debate is that there is > absolutely no incentive > for anyone to go out and > form a new TLD registry > for any shared TLD's. > Why start anything where > the competion is so far > ahead in the game? > It's for serious takers that will be around for a long time. Wannabe overnight get-rich-quick-because-the-world-owes-me-a-living thrill-seekers need not apply. > A vote for Shared TLD's > only is a vote for continued > abuses. A vote for extremely > limited new TLD's is the same. > > Only unrestricted Non-Shared > exclusive Top Level Domains > will encourage real people > to put real machines and real > money into the process. > How does open free market competition amongst registries, where the CUSTOMER has a choice of where to shop encourage continued abuses? I dunno Bob, it's exactly what you demanded in July. It's now August and you've changed your mind again. _____S_i_m_o_n___H_i_g_g_s_________________H_i_g_g_s___A_m_e_r_i_c_a_____ ... "I'm fine - it's the others" ......... President/CEO ................ _____e-mail: simon@higgs.com _____________ http://www.higgs.com/ ________ ... http://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-higgs-tld-cat-02.txt ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Aug 1996 15:11:08 -0700 From: huitema@bellcore.com (Christian Huitema) Subject: Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Break Monopolies > This is pure genius Bob. How does creating more monopolies solve the > existing problem? This is exactly the same as using gasoline to > extinguish a fire. Uh? A monopoly is when one customer has to buy a product from exactly one supplier, and there is no competition. The moment there are several providers, there is competition. True, the manager of C01 may have a monopoly on that domain, and the managers of C02 and C03 on theirs. But then, nobody would say that the aitomobile market is not competitive because Toyota has a monopoly on Toyotas, right? - -- Christian Huitema ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Aug 1996 15:34:19 -0700 From: huitema@bellcore.com (Christian Huitema) Subject: Re: Who "owns" tld's > Both of the models advanced so far for shared TLDs retain "full service" > name servers. In the distributed model there may be a small window > during which some name servers know about a domain and others don't. > This window would be small and only appear at domain creation/update. This means that whenever you create or update one of the domains that you, one of the sharing registries, manage, then you must update dynamically all the copies of the complete domain. In short, each time I add 1,000,000 entries to my data base, everybody in the sharing agreement gets to add 1,000,000 entries in theirs. On one hand, I like the idea that "if you want to compete, you must run a server and serve the whole domain." Enhance the spirit of cooperation and all that. But then, these guys are my competitors. So I have a business model where, the most successful I am, the more cost they bear. I am not sure this is sustainable. At the very least, there must be some cost sharing agreement... - -- Christian Huitema ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Aug 1996 16:30:45 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies At 6:10 PM -0400 8/16/96, Christian Huitema wrote: >> This is pure genius Bob. How does creating more monopolies solve the >> existing problem? This is exactly the same as using gasoline to >> extinguish a fire. > >Uh? A monopoly is when one customer has to buy a product from exactly one >supplier, and there is no competition. The moment there are several >providers, there is competition. True, the manager of C01 may have a >monopoly on that domain, and the managers of C02 and C03 on theirs. But >then, nobody would say that the aitomobile market is not competitive >because Toyota has a monopoly on Toyotas, right? > Wrong. That's a very badly flawed analysis. I won't even get into why .C01 thu .C0zillion won't work. Toyota equates to the TLD. You're asking for Toyota to set up a Toyota-owned store and prevent any other auto dealer from selling Toyotas. That's a monopoly. There is no choice for the consumer. If you want a Toyota you must buy it here, or you can't buy a Toyota. That's EXACTLY the same as .COM, .ORG, etc. are right now, which is what Bob is screaming to eliminate. Selling goods in multiple stores is the norm in retail. Consumers can buy a particular product (say a box of corn flakes) at the store of their choosing. It's how the free market works. It's a very popular concept. Registering for a domain name should be exactly the same process. Jeez... this isn't brain surgery. _____S_i_m_o_n___H_i_g_g_s_________________H_i_g_g_s___A_m_e_r_i_c_a_____ ... "I'm fine - it's the others" ......... President/CEO ................ _____e-mail: simon@higgs.com _____________ http://www.higgs.com/ ________ ... http://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-higgs-tld-cat-02.txt ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Aug 1996 16:52:22 -0700 From: chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler) Subject: Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies >Toyota equates to the TLD. You're asking for Toyota to set up a >Toyota-owned store and prevent any other auto dealer from selling Toyotas. Exactly. >That's a monopoly. Not by any stretch of the imagination. >There is no choice for the consumer. If you want a >Toyota you must buy it here, or you can't buy a Toyota. That's EXACTLY the >same as .COM, .ORG, etc. are right now, which is what Bob is screaming to >eliminate. Not in a million years. The consumer has a choice. They can buy a Toyota, or, if they don't like Toyota, they can buy a Ford, Dodge, Mercedes, VW, etc... there are plenty of cars. If Toyota charges too much, Ford is nice, too. If .BIZ charges too much, there's always .CORP or .WEB. We have competition where everyone involved has their "store" and sets their own policies. >Selling goods in multiple stores is the norm in retail. Consumers can buy a >particular product (say a box of corn flakes) at the store of their >choosing. It's how the free market works. It's a very popular concept. There's only 1 Kellogs Corn Flakes, and Kellogs sets the price. They don't have shared stores, they have RETAIL OUTLETS. By that analogy, I'll sell .WEB domains at a 10% discount to retail outlets that can then set their own markup as they wish. If you don't like Kellogs, you can buy Post. But you can't buy Post corn flakes at the Kellog's wholesale outlet. If you don't like Toyota, you can buy Ford, but you can't buy a Toyota at a Ford dealership. If you don't like .WEB, you can buy .BIZ, but you can't buy a .WEB domain at a .BIZ registry. If you're talking the norm in retail, you've destroyed your argument right there. You are right, however, that this isn't brain surgery: it's business. Christopher Ambler President, Image Online Design, Inc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Aug 1996 17:29:33 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies At 4:52 PM -0700 8/16/96, Christopher Ambler wrote: >>Toyota equates to the TLD. You're asking for Toyota to set up a >>Toyota-owned store and prevent any other auto dealer from selling Toyotas. > >Exactly. > >>That's a monopoly. > >Not by any stretch of the imagination. > According to the FTC, it's a monopoly. Ask Karl. Why do you think he's been rabbiting on about NSI? >>There is no choice for the consumer. If you want a >>Toyota you must buy it here, or you can't buy a Toyota. That's EXACTLY the >>same as .COM, .ORG, etc. are right now, which is what Bob is screaming to >>eliminate. > >Not in a million years. The consumer has a choice. They can buy a >Toyota, or, if they don't like Toyota, they can buy a Ford, Dodge, >Mercedes, VW, etc... there are plenty of cars. If Toyota charges >too much, Ford is nice, too. If .BIZ charges too much, there's >always .CORP or .WEB. We have competition where everyone involved >has their "store" and sets their own policies. > You're providing no choice in buying a Toyota. That's called a monopoly, which is not how the real market works. I can go, right now, to any of a couple of hundred dealers in L.A. which will sell me a new Toyota. I can also buy other makes off the same lot, but I have the choice of dealers for any one particular manufacturer. >>Selling goods in multiple stores is the norm in retail. Consumers can buy a >>particular product (say a box of corn flakes) at the store of their >>choosing. It's how the free market works. It's a very popular concept. > >There's only 1 Kellogs Corn Flakes, and Kellogs sets the price. They >don't have shared stores, they have RETAIL OUTLETS. By that analogy, >I'll sell .WEB domains at a 10% discount to retail outlets that can >then set their own markup as they wish. > Now you're confusing shared stores with shared-tlds. Shared stores don't exist. The TLD can be shared. It's administration can be given/delegated to multiple store managers, who can sell SLDs on the shelf alongside all the SLDs of the other TLDs. >If you don't like Kellogs, you can buy Post. But you can't buy Post >corn flakes at the Kellog's wholesale outlet. If you don't like
