Re: TLDs and file extensions (Re: DNS and potential energy)
David Conrad wrote: > People keep making the assertion that top-level domains that have the > same strings as popular file extensions will be a 'security disaster' Microsoft, in its infinite wisdom and desire to not abide by standards it has not set decided that instead of relying on the Mime type (content type:) field in the HTTP response to determine how this particular content should be rendered,, it would look at the letters following the last dot in the URL. There were many viruses which were transmitted this way, with URLs ending in .EXE which meant that Microsoft blindly executed the contents fed over the web. Often, the content type: field would point to a image/jpeg type and standards compliant browsers would simply handle this as a picture with invalid contents. I am now sure if Microsoft continues to based data type decisions on what it interprets as a file extension in a URL or not. But it should not stop the world from moving on because to those who abide by standards, such things are not a problem. However, the issue of http://museum/ is an interesting one. This may affect certain sites who would have to ensure their resolver firsts tests a single node name and only add the local domain name if the first test failed. There may be sites/systems that just automatically tag on the domain name if they just see what looks like a node name.
Re: DNS and potential energy
Tony Finch wrote: So you say the solution for bad regulation is more regulation. Been the liberal-socialist mantra for eons. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actioInfallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
Re: DNS and potential energy
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:13:31 EDT, "Jay R. Ashworth" said: > On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 12:43:54AM -0500, James Hess wrote: > > Maybe it's not that bad. The eventual result is instead of having a > > billion .COM SLDs, there are a billion TLDs: > > No, no, no, no, no. > > A billion people don't have half-a-mil each to set up TLD registries. With the US dollar continuing to tank, half-a-mil US$ *will* soon be within reach of a billion people. ;) pgpRpmElvpQ5N.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: TLDs and file extensions (Re: DNS and potential energy)
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 06:08:43AM -0700, David Conrad wrote: > >Seeing as a certain popular operating system confounds local file > >access via > >Explorer with internet access... > > I gather you're implying MS Windows does this? Start->Run. Type in the full filename of a binary on your path. (FDISK.COM) Type in the basename of a website. (FDISK.COM) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink [EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 Those who cast the vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything. -- (Joseph Stalin)
Re: DNS and potential energy
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 12:43:54AM -0500, James Hess wrote: > Maybe it's not that bad. The eventual result is instead of having a > billion .COM SLDs, there are a billion TLDs: No, no, no, no, no. A billion people don't have half-a-mil each to set up TLD registries. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink [EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 Those who cast the vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything. -- (Joseph Stalin)
Re: TLDs and file extensions (Re: DNS and potential energy)
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, David Conrad wrote: > > I could maybe see a problem with ".LOCAL" due to mdns or llmnr or ".1" > due to the risk of someone registering "127.0.0.1" RFC 1123 section 2.1 says TLDs can't be purely numeric. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ BISCAY: WEST 4 OR 5, OCCASIONALLY 6 LATER. SLIGHT OR MODERATE BECOMING ROUGH. THUNDERY SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD.
Re: DNS and potential energy
Rob Pickering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Or .com. Oddly enough I just now found a Windows box and typed > "command.com" in a browser URL bar and it did what I expected, when I > typed the same thing at a cmd prompt it did something different and I > expected that too. 1. Copy \windows\system32\cmd.exe to the desktop. 2. Run internet exploder. 3. Type "cmd.exe" in the address bar and observe what happens. I don't know about you, but given ie's default download location, and your (apparently common) erroneous expectation, this looks ripe for social engineering to me.
Re: DNS and potential energy
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:32:00 EDT, Marshall Eubanks said: > How many .com domains are there ? I have a _2001_ report of 19 > million. I would guess maybe 50 million by now. The last numbers I saw was 140M .coms. However, due to the incredible amount of churn due to domain-tasting by spammers, 50M *stable* .coms is probably a reasonable guess... pgpGYkxOENvDc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DNS and potential energy
Once again, I am baffled that people would rather speculate than do five minutes of reading. (Well, maybe baffled isn't the word.) >There is the question of the fee structure. If the fee is really > $ >100,000 USD, then this will damp down the numbers considerably. The fee isn't set, but I haven't seen any estimates under $100K. >How many .com domains are there ? I have a _2001_ report of 19 >million. I would guess maybe 50 million by now. If you had looked at the GNSO report, you wouldn't have to guess. It says there are roughly as many 2LDs in .COM as in all other TLDs combined, a pattern that hasn't changed in years. >What there may be is a raft of trademark lawsuits - for example, That's a given. R's, John
Re: DNS and potential energy
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 07:19:45PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote: > > On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > one might legitimately argue that ICANN is in need of some serious > > > regulation that can happen at that national level or on the > > > international level. > > > > Doesn't ICANN already work like an international regulator? > > Yes they do. And out of the other side of their mouth, they deny they > are a regulator. So you say the solution for bad regulation is more regulation. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ FAIR ISLE FAEROES: SOUTHEAST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. OCCASIONAL RAIN. MODERATE OR GOOD, OCCASIONALLY POOR.
RE: TLDs and file extensions (Re: DNS and potential energy)
> People keep making the assertion that top-level domains that > have the same strings as popular file extensions will be a > 'security disaster', but I've yet to see an explanation of > the potential exploits. I could maybe see a problem with > ".LOCAL" due to mdns or llmnr or ".1" due to the risk of > someone registering "127.0.0.1", but I've yet to see any > significant risk increase if (say) the .EXE TLD were created. > Can someone explain (this is a serious question)? Many years ago there was a wonderful web browser named Lynx. It could do all kinds of nifty things and you could build an entire information systems interface with it, including things like a menu that allowed you to select an executable program that would be run on the same remote system that was running Lynx. People who lived through this era have a vague memory that executables and URLs are in sort of the same namespace. Of course that's not true because executable files are referred to as lynxexec:script.pl instead of http://script.pl > > Seeing as a certain popular operating system confounds local file > > access via Explorer with internet access... > > I gather you're implying MS Windows does this? Not mine. --Michael Dillon
Re: DNS and potential energy
Maybe it's not that bad. The eventual result is instead of having a billion .COM SLDs, there are a billion TLDs: all eggs in one There are simply not going to me billions, millions, or even probably tens of thousands of TLDs as a result of this. It's still a complex several months long administrative process that costs some multiple of $100,000. As far as I can work out, minus the press noise, the difference is that creating a TLD will take half a year rather than half a decade or more. basket, the root zone -- there will be so many gTLD servers, no DNS resolver can cache the gTLD server lookups, so almost every DNS query will now involve an additional request to the root, instead of (usually) a request to a TLD server (where in the past the TLD servers' IP would still be cached for most lookups). Maybe, maybe not. Ultimately that is a 1/3 increase in number of DNS requests, say to lookup www.example.com if there wasn't a cache hit. In that case, I would expect the increase in traffic seen by root servers to be massive. There will probably be a significant increase if there is a very wide takeup of new TLDs, yes. Conversely load on some of the existing gTLD servers may decrease if the number of domains in active use is spread across a larger number of independent TLDs. Possible technical ramifications that haven't been considered with the proper weight, and ICANN rushing ahead towards implementation in 2009 without having provided opportunity for internet & ops community input before developing such drastic plans? Massive further sell-out of the root zone (a public resource) for profit? Further commercialization of the DNS? Potentially giving some registrants advantageous treatment at the TLD level, which has usually been available to registrants on more equal terms?? [access to TLDs merely first-come, first-served] Don't think that is operational and in any case the current system is weighted towards entities who have had domains for eons when they were able to be the first comers, it's very unfair and unequal in the sense that it works against the interests of newer registrants. Definitely not operational though. Vanity TLD space may make ".COM" seem boring. Visitors will expect names like "MYSITE.SHOES", and consider other sites like myshoestore1234.com "not-legitimate" or "not secure" The lucky organization who won the ICANN auction and got to run the SHOES TLD may price subdomains at $1 minimum for a 1-year registration (annual auction-based renewal/registration in case of requests to register X.TLD by multiple entities) and registrants under vanity TLD to sign non-compete agreements and other pernicious EULAs and contracts of adhesion merely to be able to put up their web site, As a subdomain of what _LOOKS_ like a generic name. And, of course, http://shoes/ reserved for the TLD registrant's billion-$ shoe store, with DNS registration a side-business (outsourced to some DNS registrar using some "domain SLD resale" service). The operational issue is? Actually your shoe shop still now has a greater number of choices (.com or .shoes) and I can bet that if your scenario comes to pass with a very aggressive and restrictive registrar of .shoes, some enterprising soul will register .boots, .sneakers or .shoeshop etc to make their living on those parts of the market that don't like .shoes policies. The possibilities that vanity TLD registry opens are more insidious than it was for someone to bag a good second-level domain. Questionable and certainly not operational. Sure, nefarious use of say .local could cause a few problems but this is I'd be more concerned about nefarious use of a TLD like ".DLL", ".EXE", ".TXT" Or other domains that look like filenames. Or .com. Oddly enough I just now found a Windows box and typed "command.com" in a browser URL bar and it did what I expected, when I typed the same thing at a cmd prompt it did something different and I expected that too. Seeing as a certain popular operating system confounds local file access via Explorer with internet access... You may think "abcd.png" is an image on your computer... but if you type that into your address, er, location bar, it may be a website too! To the extent that possibility already exists, there is a reason that web URIs have both a host and path component. I don't see why new TLDs substantially change this. If applications insist on confusing the two then bad things will always happen but that is an app issue. -- Rob.
Re: DNS and potential energy
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 04:01:34AM -, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > Doesn't ICANN already work like an international regulator?
>
> No. They are more like the IETF than the ITU, but not quite the IETF.
> It's hard to describe. The origins are Berkman Center for Internet
> and Soceity at Harvard, and what is in existence today is a far
> cry from the original social desire of folks that are still there
> today who, based on my knowledge and perception, have been mostly
> disenfranchised.
>
> But not quite a regulator.
They're sort of like Telcordia, formerly Bellcore, in my perception:
they promulgate standards that everyone follows... because everyone
needs some standards to follow.
Clearly, they do not have the force of regulations, or we wouldn't have
people operating root zones with things in them which aren't sanctioned
by ICANN ('sanctioned'. Another one of those auto-antonymic words I
love, like 'academic'... :-)[1].
Cheers,
-- jra
[1] Don't assume from that that I'm anti-expanded-root[2]
[2] Please don't start this R-war on this list again. :-)
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
Those who count the vote decide everything.
-- (Joseph Stalin)
Re: DNS and potential energy
On Jul 1, 2008, at 1:43 AM, James Hess wrote: I'm still having a hard time seeing what everyone is getting worked up about. Maybe it's not that bad. The eventual result is instead of having a billion .COM SLDs, there are a billion TLDs: all eggs in one basket, There is the question of the fee structure. If the fee is really > $ 100,000 USD, then this will damp down the numbers considerably. Here is a way to estimate this - by my estimate, there are something like 1 million worldwide companies with revenues > $ 5 million USD / yr. The companies I have dealt with making ~ $ 5 million / year are hesitant to spend $ 100 K on _anything_, but maybe TLDs will be seen as the thing to have. So, I could imagine 1 million TLDs at this price level, maybe, but not many more, and maybe substantially less. How many .com domains are there ? I have a _2001_ report of 19 million. I would guess maybe 50 million by now. Would adding 1 million TLDs really be worse for the DNS system than 50 or 100 million dot com domains ? Of course, this depends on the crucial question of the fee. If it drops to $ 100 USD, then I could certainly imagine a similar number to the number of dot com domains, i.e., many millions. This seems like a good place to ask if any of that ICANN money is going to the root domains... the root zone -- there will be so many gTLD servers, no DNS resolver can cache the gTLD server lookups, so almost every DNS query will now involve an additional request to the root, instead of (usually) a request to a TLD server (where in the past the TLD servers' IP would still be cached for most lookups). Ultimately that is a 1/3 increase in number of DNS requests, say to lookup www.example.com if there wasn't a cache hit. In that case, I would expect the increase in traffic seen by root servers to be massive. Possible technical ramifications that haven't been considered with the proper weight, and ICANN rushing ahead towards implementation in 2009 without having provided opportunity for internet & ops community input before developing such drastic plans? Massive further sell-out of the root zone (a public resource) for profit? Further commercialization of the DNS? Potentially giving some registrants advantageous treatment at the TLD level, which has usually been available to registrants on more equal terms?? [access to TLDs merely first-come, first-served] Vanity TLD space may make ".COM" seem boring. Visitors will expect names like "MYSITE.SHOES", and consider other sites like myshoestore1234.com "not-legitimate" or "not secure" I personally doubt it, for the same reason that there is shoes.com but not nike.shoes.com. To me, the notion that people will find the shoes they want on the web by starting at http://www.shoes seems archaic, very 1995. What there may be is a raft of trademark lawsuits - for example, Shoes.com, Inc. a subsidiary of Brown Shoe Company (NYSE:BWS) presumably has some sort of trademark rights to "shoes.com". Nobody has rights to "shoes," so expect some fights here (as a potential example, between the future owners of "shoes" and companies like Nike, and maybe also shoes.com. IANAL, but I suspect that Brown Show might be able to claim that ".Shoes" might infringe on the "shoes.com" mark). Regards Marshall The lucky organization who won the ICANN auction and got to run the SHOES TLD may price subdomains at $1 minimum for a 1-year registration (annual auction-based renewal/registration in case of requests to register X.TLD by multiple entities) and registrants under vanity TLD to sign non-compete agreements and other pernicious EULAs and contracts of adhesion merely to be able to put up their web site, As a subdomain of what _LOOKS_ like a generic name. And, of course, http://shoes/ reserved for the TLD registrant's billion-$ shoe store, with DNS registration a side-business (outsourced to some DNS registrar using some "domain SLD resale" service). The possibilities that vanity TLD registry opens are more insidious than it was for someone to bag a good second-level domain. Sure, nefarious use of say .local could cause a few problems but this is I'd be more concerned about nefarious use of a TLD like ".DLL", ".EXE", ".TXT" Or other domains that look like filenames. Seeing as a certain popular operating system confounds local file access via Explorer with internet access... You may think "abcd.png" is an image on your computer... but if you type that into your address, er, location bar, it may be a website too! ".local" seems like a pretty good TLD name to be registered, compared to others, even many that have been established or proposed in the past, more general than ".city" (unincorporated areas with some sort of name also can use .local) short, general and simple (just like a gTLD should be), not highly-specific and elaborate like ".museum" -- -
TLDs and file extensions (Re: DNS and potential energy)
On Jun 30, 2008, at 10:43 PM, James Hess wrote: Sure, nefarious use of say .local could cause a few problems but this is I'd be more concerned about nefarious use of a TLD like ".DLL", ".EXE", ".TXT" Or other domains that look like filenames. Like .INFO, .PL, .SH, and, of course, .COM? People keep making the assertion that top-level domains that have the same strings as popular file extensions will be a 'security disaster', but I've yet to see an explanation of the potential exploits. I could maybe see a problem with ".LOCAL" due to mdns or llmnr or ".1" due to the risk of someone registering "127.0.0.1", but I've yet to see any significant risk increase if (say) the .EXE TLD were created. Can someone explain (this is a serious question)? Seeing as a certain popular operating system confounds local file access via Explorer with internet access... I gather you're implying MS Windows does this? You may think "abcd.png" is an image on your computer... but if you type that into your address, er, location bar, it may be a website too! Is there a browser (Internet Explorer? I don't run Windows) that looks on the local file system if you don't specify 'file://'? Wouldn't that sort of annoy the folks who run (say) help.com? Regards, -drc
Re: DNS and potential energy
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 07:19:45PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > one might legitimately argue that ICANN is in need of > > some serious regulation > > > > that can happen at that national level or on the international > > level. > > Doesn't ICANN already work like an international regulator? > > Tony. Yes they do. And out of the other side of their mouth, they deny they are a regulator. --bill
Re: DNS and potential energy
> I'm still having a hard time seeing what everyone is getting worked up about. Maybe it's not that bad. The eventual result is instead of having a billion .COM SLDs, there are a billion TLDs: all eggs in one basket, the root zone -- there will be so many gTLD servers, no DNS resolver can cache the gTLD server lookups, so almost every DNS query will now involve an additional request to the root, instead of (usually) a request to a TLD server (where in the past the TLD servers' IP would still be cached for most lookups). Ultimately that is a 1/3 increase in number of DNS requests, say to lookup www.example.com if there wasn't a cache hit. In that case, I would expect the increase in traffic seen by root servers to be massive. Possible technical ramifications that haven't been considered with the proper weight, and ICANN rushing ahead towards implementation in 2009 without having provided opportunity for internet & ops community input before developing such drastic plans? Massive further sell-out of the root zone (a public resource) for profit? Further commercialization of the DNS? Potentially giving some registrants advantageous treatment at the TLD level, which has usually been available to registrants on more equal terms?? [access to TLDs merely first-come, first-served] Vanity TLD space may make ".COM" seem boring. Visitors will expect names like "MYSITE.SHOES", and consider other sites like myshoestore1234.com "not-legitimate" or "not secure" The lucky organization who won the ICANN auction and got to run the SHOES TLD may price subdomains at $1 minimum for a 1-year registration (annual auction-based renewal/registration in case of requests to register X.TLD by multiple entities) and registrants under vanity TLD to sign non-compete agreements and other pernicious EULAs and contracts of adhesion merely to be able to put up their web site, As a subdomain of what _LOOKS_ like a generic name. And, of course, http://shoes/ reserved for the TLD registrant's billion-$ shoe store, with DNS registration a side-business (outsourced to some DNS registrar using some "domain SLD resale" service). The possibilities that vanity TLD registry opens are more insidious than it was for someone to bag a good second-level domain. > Sure, nefarious use of say .local could cause a few problems but this is I'd be more concerned about nefarious use of a TLD like ".DLL", ".EXE", ".TXT" Or other domains that look like filenames. Seeing as a certain popular operating system confounds local file access via Explorer with internet access... You may think "abcd.png" is an image on your computer... but if you type that into your address, er, location bar, it may be a website too! ".local" seems like a pretty good TLD name to be registered, compared to others, even many that have been established or proposed in the past, more general than ".city" (unincorporated areas with some sort of name also can use .local) short, general and simple (just like a gTLD should be), not highly-specific and elaborate like ".museum" -- -J
RE: DNS and potential energy
> Doesn't ICANN already work like an international regulator? No. They are more like the IETF than the ITU, but not quite the IETF. It's hard to describe. The origins are Berkman Center for Internet and Soceity at Harvard, and what is in existence today is a far cry from the original social desire of folks that are still there today who, based on my knowledge and perception, have been mostly disenfranchised. But not quite a regulator. -M<
Re: DNS and potential energy
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > one might legitimately argue that ICANN is in need of > some serious regulation > > that can happen at that national level or on the international > level. Doesn't ICANN already work like an international regulator? Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ SHANNON ROCKALL: MAINLY SOUTHERLY 5 TO 7, OCCASIONALLY GALE 8 AND BECOMING CYCLONIC FOR A TIME, DECREASING 4 IN NORTH ROCKALL. ROUGH OR VERY ROUGH. RAIN THEN SHOWERS. POOR BECOMING GOOD.
Re: DNS and potential energy
--On 29 June 2008 23:59 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: one might legitimately argue that ICANN is in need of some serious regulation that can happen at that national level or on the international level. It is very likely that "serious regulation" particularly at an "international level" would have a way more degenerate effect on DNS operations than adding a bunch of new entries into the root. Be careful about what you legitimately argue for... I'm still having a hard time seeing what everyone is getting worked up about. Can anyone point to an example of a reasonably plausible bad thing, that could happen as a result of doubling, tripling, or even increasing by an order of magnitude the size of the root zone. Sure, nefarious use of say .local could cause a few problems but this is pretty inconceivable given that: 1) most estimates I've seen of the cost of setting up a TLD start at around $500,000 (probably a bit over the credit limit on a stolen credit card #). 2) These are easily fixed by adding known large uses like to this to the formal reserved list. 3) I'm sure that these will in any case be caught well before deployment under the proposed filtering process. So, other than a change in the number of various DNS related money chutes and their net recipients, what are the actual operational issues here? -- Rob.
Re: DNS and potential energy
this may actually be the straw that triggers a serious redesign of the Internet's lookup system(s)... if not this, then IPv6 has a good chance. Incremental changes are good - are stable (usually), and often can be compartmentalized. But sometimes - revolutionary changes are needed. and if they have the same attributes (stable & compartmentable) - then all the better. the real issues w/ new TLDs is that they are being rolled out at the same time as IDN tlds the number of applications and endsystems that will need to be rebuilt, tested, debugged, shipped, and documented is nearly unimmaginable. your comment wrt operations is, dare I say, understated? the opex for this is huge. ICANN reaps the profits and the ISPs customers pay. (*) Friend Bush alluded to this earlier. It si my fond hope that DNS validation API's are built/tested soon, so that end systems have one sea change and not three within the next 24 months. Oh yeah... and make sure you get IPv6 capability in there too. This will not be your fathers Internet. --bill On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:12:27AM -, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > This is currently a mostly capex-less exercise. I agree, the load is on > operations, and likely at ICANN, VeriSign, and the DoC. > > We need way more detail than we have, but I hope all parties and the AC's > move in a stewardship -and- commerce friendly direction with this. Even if it > causes an evolution in the root -- which I believe it will. > > Best, > > Marty > > > "Nothing like having a front row seat on the Internet". > ---Mary Reindeau > > > > > - Original Message - > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org ; Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sun Jun 29 23:59:58 2008 > Subject: DNS and potential energy > > On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 02:14:58PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > > > > The only decision that is required is whether new generic top-level > > domains are desired. If not, do nothing. Otherwise, shake as much > > energy into the system as possible and sit back and let it find its > > own steady state. > > > > Joe > > possession and use of classV explosives is regulated in > most jurisdictions. > > but if you think that if we pack enough C4 into the DNS > and set it off, that we might find equalibrium, you might > be right. :) the result will still be a flat namespace, > (perhaps a crater where the namespace was). > > one might legitimately argue that ICANN is in need of > some serious regulation > > that can happen at that national level or on the international > level. > > --bill >
Re: DNS and potential energy
This is currently a mostly capex-less exercise. I agree, the load is on operations, and likely at ICANN, VeriSign, and the DoC. We need way more detail than we have, but I hope all parties and the AC's move in a stewardship -and- commerce friendly direction with this. Even if it causes an evolution in the root -- which I believe it will. Best, Marty "Nothing like having a front row seat on the Internet". ---Mary Reindeau - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: nanog@nanog.org ; Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sun Jun 29 23:59:58 2008 Subject: DNS and potential energy On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 02:14:58PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > > The only decision that is required is whether new generic top-level > domains are desired. If not, do nothing. Otherwise, shake as much > energy into the system as possible and sit back and let it find its > own steady state. > > Joe possession and use of classV explosives is regulated in most jurisdictions. but if you think that if we pack enough C4 into the DNS and set it off, that we might find equalibrium, you might be right. :) the result will still be a flat namespace, (perhaps a crater where the namespace was). one might legitimately argue that ICANN is in need of some serious regulation that can happen at that national level or on the international level. --bill
DNS and potential energy
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 02:14:58PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > > The only decision that is required is whether new generic top-level > domains are desired. If not, do nothing. Otherwise, shake as much > energy into the system as possible and sit back and let it find its > own steady state. > > Joe possession and use of classV explosives is regulated in most jurisdictions. but if you think that if we pack enough C4 into the DNS and set it off, that we might find equalibrium, you might be right. :) the result will still be a flat namespace, (perhaps a crater where the namespace was). one might legitimately argue that ICANN is in need of some serious regulation that can happen at that national level or on the international level. --bill
