------- Forwarded Message
Return-Path: <msondow@iciiu.org>
Received: from 127.0.0.1 [127.0.0.1]
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.4.3)
for smb@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 02 Nov 2000 15:16:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (mail-blue.research.att.com [135.207.30.102])
by postal.research.att.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA20069
for <smb@postal.research.att.com>; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:15:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix)
id 8746B4CE8C; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:15:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail-1.catskill.net (ns.catskill.net [205.232.250.2])
by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E23E4CE56
for <smb@research.att.com>; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:15:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from iciiu.org (109.m45.mon.catskill.net [12.33.159.109])
by mail-1.catskill.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id eA2KFEp27107;
Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:15:14 -0500
Delivered-To: smb@research.att.com
Message-ID: <3A01CB40.23D216F0@iciiu.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 15:14:56 -0500
From: Michael Sondow <msondow@iciiu.org>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [fr] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
Cc: JIM FLEMING <jfleming@anet.com>, DOMAIN-POLICY@lists.netsol.com,
Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com>
Subject: Re: The PSO on TLDs...
References: <20001102194707.2FBDC35DC3@smb.research.att.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-UIDL: 411ab9df5a02c908e6cac840556a8ce4
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>
> In message <3A018E13.D6EA0113@iciiu.org>, Michael Sondow writes:
> >JIM FLEMING wrote:
> >>
> >> Steve Bellovin wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 1) We see no technical problems caused by the creation of a
> >> > relatively small number of new gTLDs.
> >> > 2) We recommend that the root servers be monitored for increased
> >> > load caused by these new gTLDs.
> >> > 3) We suggest that they be semantically "far" from existing gTLDs,
> >> > to avoid confusion. Thus, .corp would be be bad, because it is
> >> > too similar to .com.
> >
> >> By small number...can we assume 2,048 would be small ?
> >>
> >> Given that the .COM servers used to be co-resident with the root
> >> of the IPv4 legacy DNS, it can easily be shown that supporting
> >> millions of .COM names was not that different from supporting millions
> >> of TLDs from a traffic and protocol point of view. Since you claim to
> >> be providing "PSO" input, I assume protocols come into play somewhere
> >> in these discussions.
> >>
> >> With respect to your item #2, keep in mind that many ISPs do not
> >> rely on any root servers to locate the clusters of TLD servers. With
> >> Floating Root technology, one can easily locate the dominant TLD
> >> servers for a TLD with a quick bottom-up check. This reduces the
> >> reliance of an ISP on the single point of failure of any RSC and allows
> >> the ISPs to filter out errors that pop up in the various RSCs.
>
> You'll probably have to forward this to DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.NETSOL.COM,
> since as I recall it only permits subscribers to post, and I'm not on
> that list.
> >
> >Rather than opinions based on technical "protocol" issues, Mr.
> >Bellovin's comments seem to be politically inspired. The gist of his
> >message is: few new TLDs, very carefully chosen.
> >
> >One wonders if his post to Louis Touton was spontaneous, or if it
> >was a response to a call from Touton for support from the PSO for
> >his (Touton's) TLD policies.
>
> The ICANN board requested the opinion of the Protocol Council on the
> general question of creating new TLDs. The points quoted above were
> the consensus of the PC. There was no hint whatsoever of a desired
> answer.
How can that be, Mr. Bellovin, when many experts have stated
unequivocally that there is no technical block to the addition of
hundreds if not thousands of TLDs?
> >Who, by the way, is Steve Bellovin? Who else is on the Protocol
> >Council? How were they chosen? Are any of them not employees of
> >mega-companies, like AT&T, which have been instrumental in the
> >creation of ICANN (i.e. the GIP combine)?
> >
>
> Who am I? There's a quote from "Lord of the Rings" that I'm fond of.
>
> ``Who are you, Master?'' he asked.
>
> ``Eh, what?'' said Tom sitting up, and his eyes glinting in
> the gloom. ``Don't you know my name yet? That's the only
> answer. Tell me, who are you, alone, yourself and nameless.''
>
> If you want more details than that, feel free to peruse my Web page:
> http://www.research.att.com/~smb.
You work for AT&T, isn't that right? I guess that's answer enough.
> The Protocol Council is comprised of two appointees from each of the
> four Protocol Support Organizations: the IETF, W3C, ITU, and ETSI.
> You can find other details at http://www.pso.icann.org/, including the
> current membership. I will add only that each supporting organization
> uses its own procedures to appoint its representatives; for the IETF,
> the IAB made the appointments, in keeping with the IAB's role as liason
> to external organizations.
So, there are no representatives of the user public on the PSO Names
Council? You openly admit, then, to be in violation of the White
Paper, ICANN's bylaws, and established democratic procedures for
selecting directors of regulatory agencies?
What about the antitrust laws, and the non-delegation section and
commerce clause of the US Constitution? Not necessary to comply with
these?
> I'm unaware of any sinister plots, by AT&T or anyone else, behind my
> appointment. I assure you that AT&T does not control the IAB.
Not alone, you mean. It's merely one of the founders and most
important contributors to it, not the only one. (I refer here to
ISOC, of which the IAB is a front.)
> And my
> service on the IAB -- as with all other participation by anyone in any
> IETF activity -- is as an individual, rather than as a corporate
> representative.
Where have I heard this before? Oh, yes, it was when George Bush
told Congress that he sent arms to Iran and Nicaragua, in violation
of the law, from the offices of the CIA and the Vice President. He
did it as a private citizen, not as director of the CIA and Vice
President of the United States.
But the joke is still very funny, Mr. Bellovin. I had a hearty
laugh. Do you know any more good ones?
> I certainly did not solicit any input from anyone else
> in AT&T when we were discussing this question, nor did I receive any.
No need to. You wouldn't still work there if you took a stand
against AT&T's policies.
> As for the other questions -- the notion of "root server clusters" is
> dealt with in http://www.iab.org/iab/IAB-Technical-Comment.txt. I
> personally don't know how many new TLDs would be too many; I do note
> that (a) we have only one root, which therefore must be managed much
> more conservatively, (b) we are indeed seeing signs of stress on the
> root servers, so adding too much more load to them would seem to be
> unwise, and (c) prudent engineering practice suggests that before
> making major changes, we try a pilot program first and see what > happens.
A pilot program where the few new TLDs are managed by the same
people who run everything else, or their friends, so that everything
is kept "in the family" in case anything goes wrong. And of course
which then quickly becomes hardened into established practice, again
without any input from the user public.
I congratulate you, Mr. Bellovin, for your ability to turn fraud,
conspiracy, and crime into trivia and mundanity. You are indeed a
fine spokesman for AT&T.
Michael Sondow
=================================================================
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT INTERNET USERS
http://www.iciiu.org (ICIIU) iciiu@iciiu.org
Tel(718)846-7482 Fax(603)754-8927
=================================================================
------- End of Forwarded Message
--Steve Bellovin
=========================================================================