% On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Bill Manning wrote:
%
% > % Or more simply, may be kill the real time root servers concept and review
% > % the DNS as a non God centralized system? If there was nothing to protect
% > % because there would be nothing, we would risk far less from there.
% >
% > Been there, done that. The TBDS project (circa 1999/2000)
% > eliminated the requirement for an always on, fully connected
% > mesh, with access to any external authoritative servers, be
% > they root, tld, or anywhere else in the heirarchy.
% >
% > The upshot was that the DNS is -fully- placed in the hands of
% > the endusers. We did not replace one centralized service with
% > another or even a collection of centralized services, e.g.
% > no ICANN, no IANA, no nation state, no private industry, no
% > NGO or multinational treaty organization. It was -COMPLETELY-
% > up to the endusers.
%
% The answer "DNS is in the hands of the endusers" is a trivial answer. It
% is literally true, in the same sense that a democracy is in the hands of
% the voters. Sure, the end users (end nameserver operators) put a list of
% root servers in their DNS cache configuration, and thereby fully choose
% the set of root servers they are going to use. But the fact is that there
% is a root zone whose contents are not chosen by the end users, and that
% there is a set of root servers made available to service this zone. And
% the contents of this zone has in the past been put together by a consenus,
% and the same is true of the operation of the root servers. The main
% criticism is that the "consenus" doesn't include the developing world.
this is not how TBDS works.
% (people) ... are looking for international
% cooperation, and they are looking to get away from unilateralism.
hogwash. people want to have a way to communicate w/o excessive
interference (from anyone, including governments)
% If we
% leave the international community no choice, they could create their root
% servers, TLDs, and their own address registries and begin interconnecting
% themselves with their own internet. If they really wanted to get fancy,
% they might include some NATs, web proxies, and email gateways for
% connection to our internet. But I think this path is something that
% should be avoided. It would be a major mistake to leave the international
% community, and in particular the developing world, with this as their only
% option. They could very well take it.
Yup...
%
% --Dean
%
--
--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).