->
by chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler)
-> Re: FW: New Non-Shared TLD's Break Monopolies (fwd)
by chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler)
->
by perry@piermont.com
-> Re: FW: New Non-Shared TLD's Break Monopolies (fwd)
by perry@piermont.com
-> Mandated shared registries
by chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler)
-> Re: FW: New Non-Shared TLD's Break Monopolies (fwd)
by chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler)
-> Re: Mandated shared registries
by perry@piermont.com
-> Re: FW: New Non-Shared TLD's Break Monopolies (fwd)
by nreadwin@london.micrognosis.com (Neil Readwin)
-> Re: FW: New Non-Shared TLD's Break Monopolies (fwd)
by perry@piermont.com
-> Re: Mandated shared registries
by chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler)
-> Re: Mandated shared registries
by perry@piermont.com
-> Re: FW: New Non-Shared TLD's Break Monopolies (fwd)
by Simon Higgs
-> Re: FW: New Non-Shared TLD's Break Monopolies (fwd)
by Simon Higgs
-> Re: Mandated shared registries
by Michael Dillon
-> Re: Mandated shared registries
by chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler)
-> pointer to RWhois info
by Martin Hamilton
-> Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies
by Kent Crispin
-> Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies
by Michael Dillon
-> Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies
by perry@piermont.com
-> Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies
by perry@piermont.com
-> Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies
by Michael Dillon
-> Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies
by Kent Crispin
-> Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies
by Kent Crispin
-> Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies
by "David R. Conrad"
-> Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies
by "David R. Conrad"
-> Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies
by Michael Dillon
-> Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies
by "David R. Conrad"
-> Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies
by Michael Dillon
-> Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies
by Simon Higgs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 19 Aug 1996 01:41:31 -0700
From: "David R. Conrad"
Subject: Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies
Hi,
>1) Are these CDB operations appropriate?
]1) create/reserve(name) -- creates a shortlived entry for the name,
]associates it with the registry. Returns an error if name is already
]>present.
]2) confirm(name,IP) -- converts a temporary entry to a permanent one ...
]"after the check clears", causes the name/IP to be bound together in DNS
Not sure I see the need for a two step process here, could someone
explain?
]3) lookup(name) -- returns the id (and IP) for the registry that
]services name.
One possible approach would be to have this done within the DNS. One
proposal discussed in another forum is to create a DNS sub-tree for
registry information (maintained by the current regional registries)
so you would have something like the following:
.domain.ipv4.foo.net. IN CNAME
whois clients could then tack on (.domain.ipv4.foo.net) to the domain
name and have returned the IP address of the registry where that
domain name is registered.
]4) delete(name) -- removes the name, both from the CDB and DNS.
Yup.
I'd also suggest:
5) change(name,old IP,new IP) -- changes the server for the old IP
address into the new IP address. If old IP does not match the current
IP address in the database, an error is returned.
>2) How is authentication done?
See PGP.
>3) How does get into DNS? And, which entity(ies) runs the
>nameserver(s)?
I'd propose the CDB simply builds a zone file and puts that zone file
out for public FTP. The people who run the name servers for the zone
(not the registrars) pull down the zone periodically.
>4) How detailed do we need to get as far as protocol specifications?
I'm not sure you need a protocol, in the sense of "HELO , 500 go
away, etc". Is there any reason this can't be done with PGP (or other
accepted authentication mechanism using public keys) encoded forms
emailed to a server? Yeah, I know, not as cool as coming up with a
new protocol, but perhaps easier/faster to implement (and you don't
need to use up another protocol number).
Regards,
- -drc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 19 Aug 1996 01:46:33 -0700
From: Simon Higgs
Subject: Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies
At 11:42 PM -0700 8/18/96, Kent Crispin wrote:
>> This is a very basic set which only contains current records, but it's a
>> start to work from:
>
>[description of records deleted]
>
>I really think this information should be kept at the registry, not
>the CDB. If all this data is kept at the CDB, then everytime a tiny
>change is made in the contact information the CDB gets involved. The
>CDB thus handles all the "whois" queries. This seems to make the
>"lightweight" registry actually rather heavy, and it becomes a general
>service on the net, available to anyone who does a "whois" -- that is,
>the CDB would become the "whois" server for the entire net, instead of
>just a private database between the registries.
>
It can remain private with access only to authorized registries. That's
easy to implement. But is the CDB the sum of the merged registry databases?
The question arises because if the domain is going to be truly portable
between registries, all the information for that record needs to go with
it.
And this leads to more questions. This will make registries charge for
updates to existing records though, because the registry updating a record
may not be the same one used for the registration. Registries wanting to
keep customers would have to offer some kind of domain name service
contract. But then who would the annual fee be paid to?
>Ideally the DNS record for the domain should contain an enhanced DNS
>record that contains the address of the registry that services that
>domain. Whois queries would go directly to the registry that had the
>data.
>
Why not let all registries share the data for each TLD they service? They
can update from the master database, and the customer has a choice of which
whois to use. This could be a key factor in which registry the customer
decides to use.
_____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: 19 Aug 1996 01:52:55 -0700
From: "David R. Conrad"
Subject: Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies
>>Er, what is this about binding names to IPs? Thats something you do
>>for an A record, not for a domain name.
>I think he means creating the zone NS record for the domain being
>registered, and pointing that to the applicants name server.
Right, that's what I assumed.
>This is a very basic set which only contains current records, but it's a
>start to work from:
>
>Contact table:
...
>Domain table:
...
>Host table:
You've just replicated a the current whois registry for those specific
objects. Why not simply use the existing schemas with rwhois or the
DNS hack I mentioned in a previous note?
Regards,
- -drc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 19 Aug 1996 04:21:33 -0700
From: Alan Barrett
Subject: Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies
> Not sure I see the need for a two step process here, could someone
> explain?
At present, the domain registration process usually goes something like
this:
0. Decide that you want a new domain name.
1. Check that the name is not already taken.
2. Set up nameservers (or perhaps leave that for later).
3. Send in registration request, something like this:
registration_request(domain_name, requestor_credentials,
nameserver_details)
4. Registration authority checks that name is available, that
credentials are OK, and that nameservers work, and then confirms
registration.
5. Set up nameservers now, if not done earlier.
There's a race here: if more than one party wants the same domain name,
then step 1 can succeed for all of them, steps 2 and 3 get done for all
of them, but step 4 succeeds for no more than one of them. Then the
losers of the race need to undo the work done in step 2, and if they
forget then problems will arise later. We want to set up nameservers
before registration, so that the registrationa uthority can check that
the nameservers are working. But we also want to register before
setting up nameservers, so that there's nothing to undo if we lose the
registration race.
Notice that the registration request above has two functions:
* To determine which of one or more near-simultaneous requests wins.
* To associate the winner's nameserver details with the domain name.
It makes sense to separate those two functions of the registration
request, making an overall process more like this:
0. Decide that you want a new domain name.
1. Check that the name is not already taken.
3. Send in name-reservation request, something like this:
name_reservation_request(domain_name, requestor_credentials)
4. Registration authority checks that anme is available and
credentials are OK, reserves the name for a short time, and sends
the requestor a short-lived reservation code that they should use
as part of the future registration request.
5. Set up nameservers.
6. Send in domain registration request, something like this:
registration_request(reservation_code, nameserver_details)
7. Registration authority checks that reservation code is valid,
checks that nameservers are working, updates the DNS, and sends
back a confirmation.
Now, if several near-simultaneous attempts are made to reserve the name,
only one will succeed, and the losers know that they have lost *before* they
start setting up the nameservers. So the losers have no work that needs to
be undone.
- --apb (Alan Barrett)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 19 Aug 1996 07:49:44 -0700
From: perry@piermont.com
Subject: Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies
Simon Higgs writes:
> At 11:42 PM -0700 8/18/96, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >I really think this information should be kept at the registry, not
> >the CDB. If all this data is kept at the CDB, then everytime a tiny
> >change is made in the contact information the CDB gets involved. The
> >CDB thus handles all the "whois" queries. This seems to make the
> >"lightweight" registry actually rather heavy, and it becomes a general
> >service on the net, available to anyone who does a "whois" -- that is,
> >the CDB would become the "whois" server for the entire net, instead of
> >just a private database between the registries.
I'll point out right there that just because the CDB generates the
"whois" information doesn't mean it has to run the servers.
> It can remain private with access only to authorized registries. That's
> easy to implement. But is the CDB the sum of the merged registry databases?
> The question arises because if the domain is going to be truly portable
> between registries, all the information for that record needs to go
> with it.
Exactly the reason why I think the information should be in the CDB.
> And this leads to more questions. This will make registries charge for
> updates to existing records though, because the registry updating a record
> may not be the same one used for the registration. Registries wanting to
> keep customers would have to offer some kind of domain name service
> contract. But then who would the annual fee be paid to?
I'd say the right model is that only the registry that created a
record can update it until the record is formally handed over to
another registry. Why?
Legal liability, for one thing. You want the REGISTRY to be
responsible for the registration of a particular domain, not the
organization running the CDB.
Fees also come in -- the annual fee gets paid to the REGISTRY.
On the other hand, a formal mechanism should exist to allow people to
swap registries at any time. (This probably necessitates having
registries paid in advance, by the way, or they would lose an
important mechanism to avoid being screwed, namely holding a
domain hostage. Luckily, we live in an age of credit cards.)
Perry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 19 Aug 1996 09:01:18 -0700
From: chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler)
Subject: Re: FW: New Non-Shared TLD's Break Monopolies (fwd)
>However, I didn't find a well made point in it anywhere. Perhaps you
>could translate?
I was referring to Bob's point that if all TLDs are mandated as
shared, there is very little financial incentive to enter the
market. I consider this a very valid point, regardless of the
profanity and name-calling at the end of the post.
I was, more than anything, trying to impress upon Bob that he could
make his point without the temper at the end.
Christopher Ambler
President, Image Online Design, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 19 Aug 1996 09:03:28 -0700
From: Kent Crispin
Subject: Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies
Perry E. Metzger allegedly said:
>
>
> Simon Higgs writes:
> > At 11:42 PM -0700 8/18/96, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > >I really think this information should be kept at the registry, not
> > >the CDB. If all this data is kept at the CDB, then everytime a tiny
> > >change is made in the contact information the CDB gets involved. The
> > >CDB thus handles all the "whois" queries. This seems to make the
> > >"lightweight" registry actually rather heavy, and it becomes a general
> > >service on the net, available to anyone who does a "whois" -- that is,
> > >the CDB would become the "whois" server for the entire net, instead of
> > >just a private database between the registries.
>
> I'll point out right there that just because the CDB generates the
> "whois" information doesn't mean it has to run the servers.
But it does mean we would have a far more complex protocol to invent.
> > It can remain private with access only to authorized registries. That's
> > easy to implement. But is the CDB the sum of the merged registry databases?
> > The question arises because if the domain is going to be truly portable
> > between registries, all the information for that record needs to go
> > with it.
>
> Exactly the reason why I think the information should be in the CDB.
If the information is available from the registry via a "whois", then
there is no particular advantage to having it in the CDB. If the
customer is leaving the registry because of its failure to maintain
"whois" information, then doesn't make any difference if the failure
is in updataing a local database of if the failure is in updating the
CDB.
> > And this leads to more questions. This will make registries charge for
> > updates to existing records though, because the registry updating a record
> > may not be the same one used for the registration. Registries wanting to
> > keep customers would have to offer some kind of domain name service
> > contract. But then who would the annual fee be paid to?
>
> I'd say the right model is that only the registry that created a
> record can update it until the record is formally handed over to
> another registry. Why?
>
> Legal liability, for one thing. You want the REGISTRY to be
> responsible for the registration of a particular domain, not the
> organization running the CDB.
>
> Fees also come in -- the annual fee gets paid to the REGISTRY.
>
> On the other hand, a formal mechanism should exist to allow people to
> swap registries at any time. (This probably necessitates having
> registries paid in advance, by the way, or they would lose an
> important mechanism to avoid being screwed, namely holding a
> domain hostage. Luckily, we live in an age of credit cards.)
All this would fall out naturally for a model with local (to the registry)
storage of the whois data.
- --
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: 19 Aug 1996 09:06:49 -0700
From: Michael Dillon
Subject: Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies
On Mon, 19 Aug 1996, David R. Conrad wrote:
> Not sure I see the need for a two step process here, could someone
> explain?
Customer service. The registry agents are likely to be close to the
customer, perhaps even ISP's. If the customer calls up and asks to
register a domain it is extremely common nowadays for an ISP to do a whois
query to see if the name is available. But even if it is free at that
point, registering it is still a crap shoot because another application
may be winging its way to the NIC.
So by doing a combined query and name reservation we can authoritatively
tell the customer, "Yes this name is yours if you complete a registry
application within the next hour".
> >4) How detailed do we need to get as far as protocol specifications?
>
> I'm not sure you need a protocol, in the sense of "HELO , 500 go
> away, etc". Is there any reason this can't be done with PGP (or other
> accepted authentication mechanism using public keys) encoded forms
> emailed to a server? Yeah, I know, not as cool as coming up with a
> new protocol, but perhaps easier/faster to implement (and you don't
> need to use up another protocol number).
I think the whole thing can be done merely by defining a CGI-based
protocol. In other words we define an HTML form that uses POST
transactions and we define the behavior of the backend CGI script that
handles it. This allows agents to build the various transactions into a
well documented (via HTML) website and is still simple enough that other
kinds of tools can easily generate registry transactions.
Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting
Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 19 Aug 1996 09:31:14 -0700
From: perry@piermont.com
Subject: Re: FW: New Non-Shared TLD's Break Monopolies (fwd)
Christopher Ambler writes:
> >However, I didn't find a well made point in it anywhere. Perhaps you
> >could translate?
>
> I was referring to Bob's point that if all TLDs are mandated as
> shared, there is very little financial incentive to enter the
> market. I consider this a very valid point, regardless of the
> profanity and name-calling at the end of the post.
We all know, Chris, that you want to get rich off of owning a TLD. I
still don't see how this argument you are making is different from any
other protectionist argument made back to the beginning of time. Were
your argument correct, no one would be in any business at all.
As I have stated repeatedly, there is an obvious equilibrium
point. People will enter the market until profit margins in running
registries fall to the point where returns are comparable to what you
get doing any other sort of business, and then they will stop entering
the business. No, you won't get rich doing it, but people WILL be in
the business.
Your argument makes as much sense as the famous Yogi Berraism "the
place is so crowded that no one goes there any more".
Perry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 19 Aug 1996 09:34:21 -0700
From: perry@piermont.com
Subject: Re: New Non-Shared TLD's Create More Monopolies
Kent Crispin writes:
> Perry E. Metzger allegedly said:
> > I'll point out right there that just because the CDB generates the
> > "whois" information doesn't mean it has to run the servers.
>
> But it does mean we would have a far more complex protocol to invent.
Not in the least. As I've said, whats needed in the first place is a
database protocol. Once you have a database protocol, this isn't more
complicated.
> > Exactly the reason why I think the information should be in the CDB.
>
> If the information is available from the registry via a "whois", then
> there is no particular advantage to having it in the CDB.
Of course there is. First of all, "whois" isn't a hierarchical access
protocol, so all the "whois" databases have to get merged the way
things work these days. Second of all, the data has to be preserved if
a registry goes "boom!". Third, "whois" provides a textual interface,
not a structured interface suitable for transfering database contents.
> All this would fall out naturally for a model with local (to the registry)
> storage of the whois data.
I really see no point to registry only local storage of whois type
information. It makes little sense to me.
Perry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 19 Aug 1996 09:35:33 -0700
From: chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler)
Subject:
Subject: Re: FW: New Non-Shared TLD's Break Monopolies (fwd)
>I see all kinds of financial incentive. I think *MANY* ISP's would
>enter the market almost immediately, because it would be a clear
>value-added service for their customers.
Perhaps. I can see where this might work, but it doesn't change my
fear that the ISP with more money to lose in the short run would
take the price so low that nobody else could afford to participate.
>I imagine (though I don't advocate this particular model) that aol
>would be more than happy to have a .aol domain that was shared.
You make an interesting point, however: what if there *were* a .aol
domain? It would make logical sense only for customers of AOL, otherwise
you have a strong trademark infringement. If this is the case, AOL
could pretty much write the rules for that TLD.
>And I can imagine that you, if you had some service for .web that was
>more than just registering names, would still make substantial
>amounts of money even if it was a shared TLD.
Perhaps. We are also going to offer primary and secondary DNS, for those
who want just an A record. This is, as I see it, a value that InterNIC
doesn't offer. But remember, anything that we can do, anyone else can
do as well. That's a major selling point for our web pages - if you see
something cool on the web, as us about it, as we can do it, too.
Honestly, I still must support the "option" option - a registry can get
a TLD as first-come, and has the option to mark it as shared. Perhaps
if IANA increased the registration fee for non-shared TLDs, and drastically
reduced the fee for shared, that would lend some financial incentive.
Or not.
>> I was, more than anything, trying to impress upon Bob that he could
>> make his point without the temper at the end.
>
>It is hard to impress people when you smear yourself with excrement :-)
A .sig quote if ever I heard one!
Christopher Ambler
President, Image Online Design, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 19 Aug 1996 09:48:31 -0700
From: chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler)
Subject: Re: FW: New Non-Shared TLD's Break Monopolies (fwd)
>We all know, Chris, that you want to get rich off of owning a TLD.
I think that's an assumption on your part, Perry. I'd like to put
food on the table, yes, but getting rich isn't a priority anymore.
Let's leave the personal attacks out - this isn't a senate race.
>I still don't see how this argument you are making is different from any
>other protectionist argument made back to the beginning of time. Were
>your argument correct, no one would be in any business at all.
I think you've got it backwards. Registries having control of the TLD
that they serve is the way most businesses are run. If this were not
the case, there would be no need for the US Patent Office, would there?
You could argue that there are many resources, tangible or not, that
should be mandated shared. If this is the case, why does the Patent
Office exist? Why does the FCC regulate non-tangible radio frequencies?
Why am I not allowed to use the GIF format without paying a royalty to
Unisys?
Mandating that all TLDs are shared has three big problems:
1. What happens to .COM, .NET, etc? Must NSI share now? If you cannot
answer this one, stop here. I'll let it slide, for the sake of
compromise, that their monopoly to date will be overlooked.
2. What happens to strong trademarks that cannot be shared in the
first place, especially if the strong trademark owner decides to run
a registry? Examples, .AOL, .IBM, .ATT, .MCI, etc?
3. What happens when a registry with significant funding undercuts
everyone else and dilutes the market to the point that nobody else
can compete? What happens when someone starts giving them away for
free to corner the market? Think it won't happen? How much did you
pay for Netscape or Internet Explorer?
And what about the little problems?
1. What happens when all the owners of .FOO each chip in $10,000 for
advertising, and once the TLD has market momentum, I step in and
play? Must I chip in for advertising as well? What if the current
owners set up a consortium?
2. Worse, what if there's price-fixing?
3. For that matter, how much is paid to IANA for the right to play in
a shared TLD? Are they all the same?
I could go on, but I think I've made my point.
>Your argument makes as much sense as the famous Yogi Berraism "the
>place is so crowded that no one goes there any more".
I don't see the analogy at all.
Christopher Ambler
President, Image Online Design, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 19 Aug 1996 10:26:13 -0700
From: perry@piermont.com
Subject:
Christopher Ambler writes:
> Perhaps. I can see where this might work, but it doesn't change my
> fear that the ISP with more money to lose in the short run would
> take the price so low that nobody else could afford to participate.
Why is this bad for the consumer? Maybe its bad for *YOU*, but why
should we care about that?
We are talking about a business with fairly low barriers to entry and
fairly low cost of operation. We would expect lots of competition and
low profit levels. Why should *WE* care that *YOU* might not make much
money running a registry?
> Honestly, I still must support the "option" option - a registry can get
> a TLD as first-come, and has the option to mark it as shared.
