[ncdnhc-discuss] 2002 DNS Summary

[Jim Fleming]

http://www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/2002-March/001554.html
James Love love at cptech.org
"What about 5 (or more) ICANNs?"
---
8 seems to work out to a reasonable number, if you start with 2,048 TLDs
and start to break it down into groups that can get along. The 2,048 TLD
limit/goal/sizing is sort of like what an architect has to address when designing
a new auditorium. Are 200 seats enough ? are 2,000 ? 20,000 ?...etc. There
has to be some consideration for sizing things so that everyone can fit but there
has to be balance in order to make sure that people are not lost in a huge space.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

8 also works out to be a good starting point when one considers the evolution
from 32-bit DNS to 128-bit DNS. With 128-bit DNS, people now will have
bits they can control to fill in the underutilized bits of the IPv4 header. Also, they
will be able to use the right-most 16-bits to specify the Port number for UDP
and TCP. That was not possible with 32-bit DNS. With that change, there is
less need for the infamous IANA task. People will be free to negotiate their
use of Port numbers on the fly and use their own DNS to coordinate that. None
of this of course requires IPv6. Using 128-bit DNS does not imply IPv6. There
is a lot of life left in IPv4 and many bits to fill in to extend the addressing for
a few more decades. People will of course have to make an effort to use the
new addressing and 128-bit DNS, and they may also want to protect their
domain names and make sure that they re-register with the 128-bit DNS
Registries. Here are the 8 being developed in 2002.

2002 0:201 .COM
2002 1:158 .CLUB
2002 2:143 .FAMILY
2002 3:219 .INFO
2002 4:58 .LLC
2002 5:194 .INC
2002 6:171 .TV
2002 7:195 .CHURCH

If people have other suggestions on what the "Best-of-Breed" TLDs are
from the 2,048 TLDs. That is always of interest. There should be plenty of TLDs
for everyone as the Internet moves from the "toy" 32-bit architecture to the
new 128-bit architecture. The recent changes to Linux, FreeBSD and Windows XP
are making this more available to all people. Several hundred companies are
working together to make that happen.

http://www.upnp.org

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc09/msg01858.html
The IANA Function

As people move from 32-bit DNS to 128-bit DNS and use the IPv8 Architecture,
the big win will be that many of the "IANA Functions" will no longer need an IANA.
The 16-bit Port number is just one example. It never fit in the 32-bit A records, but
now can be included in the right-most bits of the 128-bit AAAA records. While this
may not be what the IETF and ICANN want, I do not think the world cares what
they think.....note the links below as one more example of the IPv8 Architecture
approach to Internet expansion and evolution without the need for IPv6...

http://www.upnp.org
http://hometoys.com/htinews/aug01/articles/microsoft/upnp.htm

---------------------

Once there are 2,048 TLDs in operation, then there is a basis for democracy.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

Once there are 2,048 TLDs, IN-ADDR.ARPA can be re-organized to be fair.
If anyone thinks the IANA list is fair, they have a strange definition for fair.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space

There are 256 domain names to be delegated.
[Some obviously do not have to be, such as 10.*.*.*]

0.IN-ADDR.ARPA
1.IN-ADDR.ARPA
2.IN-ADDR.ARPA
3.IN-ADDR.ARPA
...
253.IN-ADDR.ARPA
254.IN-ADDR.ARPA
255.IN-ADDR.ARPA

2,048 divided by 256 is 8. That means that each of the TLD Managers will have to
be grouped into clusters of 8 and each TLD Manager will then be able to manage
third-level domains under a second-level IN-ADDR.ARPA zone.

As an example, the 24.*.*.* allocation of address space has a long history of being poorly managed.
It was made by Jon Postel to @Home[1], via Paul Mockepetris and was eventually moved
to ARIN. Paul Mockapetis is of course now part of Nominum with Paul Vixie and David
Conrad. Conrad used to be Jon Postel's address allocator at APNIC, and is on the ARIN
Board. ARIN now out-sources the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone services to Nominum. Nominum
of course also does the out-sourcing of the .INFO TLD servers, even though they were
never mentioned in the ICANN $50,000 TLD lottery or beauty pageant.

024/8  ARIN - Cable Block   May 01
                (Formerly IANA - Jul 95)

24.IN-ADDR.ARPA is supposedly delegated to cable TV operators but ARIN and Nominum control it.

The 25th group of TLD Managers would start at 24x8=192
These TLD Managers would then be collectively delegated 24.IN-ADDR.ARPA.
0:192     GYM
0:193     PORNO
0:194     ADULT
0:195     WOVEN
0:196     MALL
0:197     YARD
0:198     BAGEL
0:199     LTD

They would then manage all of the delegations under that zone, in a fair manner
that they work out between themselves, just like the way people work out fair
laws and uses of land they live on in meat space. One likely scenario is for each
of the 8 TLD Managers to supply one of the servers to support the 24.IN-ADDR.ARPA zone.
The 8 TLD Managers could simply divide up the next level of 256 names, under that
zone, and each manage those.

As an example...

0.24.IN-ADDR.ARPA
1.24.IN-ADDR.ARPA
2.24.IN-ADDR.ARPA
...
15.24.IN-ADDR.ARPA

...could be managed by the .GYM TLD Manager.

This is the only way the Internet will have any hope of becoming "fair" and remain
freely available to the world for communication. After years of watching the I* society
game the system, I think many people agree that it is time to clean up the mess. That
has to start with IN-ADDR.ARPA, and at the same time new IN-ADDR.[TLD] zones
can be used to route around the mess.

--
JF


[1] ----- From July 1999

Mr. Tom Bliley
U.S. House of Representatives
The Committee on Commerce
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-2927
Commerce at mail.house.gov



Dear Mr. Bliley:

I see that you are beginning to hold hearings[1] to look into the
activities of the private California non-profit company known as ICANN. I
applaud your efforts. I would like to encourage you to look at the ENTIRE
landscape when it comes to Internet resource allocations. Domain names are
only one part of the DNS puzzle. They are like billboards on the
Information Highway. IP Addresses are another key part and IP address
allocations are generally controlled by the same people that control
domain names. Therefore, they should be part of your oversight effort [2].

IP Addresses are like land along the Information Highway.  Companies that
own the rights to build on that land prosper and those that do not incur
extra costs to operate and are often locked out of bids and other business
opportunities because they do not have the resources to compete on a level
playing field.  This is a very simple case of the "haves" and the "have
nots".

If your committee does a complete job and looks at IP Address Allocations,
it will likely end up in a discussion about the allocations that Jon
Postel made to another largely California based company called @Home[3]. I
suggest that you start there when you have your hearing(s) with ICANN and
ARIN.

The discussions about @Home IP Address allocations have been going on for
years. People can not seem to ever get clear answers. When the allocation
was made by Jon Postel, Paul Mockapetris had left USC/ISI and was working
for @Home. Paul Mockapetris was one of the people that helped to design
and create the DNS. Paul did not stay at @Home very long, he moved on to
start another company.

Some people claimed at the time that @Home obtained the addresses because
they had $10 million dollars in venture capital and some slick power point
slides. Others claimed that this was an experiment to create a commercial
IP address registry for the cable TV industry. Milo Medin, CTO for @Home
was seen on a popular cable TV show about computers, long after the
company was founded, describing how the Internet was born out of X.25 and
DOD networking and how important it was that he had been one of those
people. Others have noted that it did not hurt to have William Randolph
Hearst III as the initial CEO.

Still others have pointed out that Colonel Michael St. Johns was
apparently one of the U.S. Government DARPA managers that had provided
funding for Jon Postel. @Home people involved with ARIN have become very
defensive when Michael St. Johns is mentioned, noting that he did not come
to @Home until AFTER they were handed IP addresses by Postel. This seems
likely because he would have then known that @Home was well supplied with
IP addresses to build a successful company, while other companies were
being denied allocations by Postel and ARIN. Why would he go to work for a
company that did not have IP allocations? Also, it seems likely that @Home
would want to reward former U.S.  Government employees for the huge
allocation of resources obtained from the U.S. Government, at no charge to
them. Those resources were leveraged into substantial financial benefits.
Some compare it to being given the deed to Yellowstone Park by the USG
Park Ranger, Jon Postel.

One of the interesting aspects of the @Home allocation is that it shows
that a for-profit company can be given internet resources and operate as a
registry and become a commercial success that shareholders can invest in.
This established a trend of for-profit operations that could have been
continued and expanded. Instead, the U.S. Government's Department of
Commerce changed direction in 1997 when they actively assisted in the
creation of ARIN, a private non-profit Virginia company engaged in one of
the same activities that @Home handles, (i.e.  registering IP Addresses).

What has been confusing to many business people following the @Home, ARIN
and ICANN evolution is that there seems to be a trend being set by the
U.S. Government Department of Commerce to create non-profit companies
where for-profit companies could easily be encouraged, if allowed acccess
to the resources as @Home and other companies have been. This trend toward
the creation of non-profit companies appears to be inconsistent with the
U.S. Government's Internal Revenue Service guidelines which prohibit
non-profit companies from engaging in activities normally carried on
for-profit. The following inserted reference could not be more clear on
this.


@@@ http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/bus_info/eo/bl-req.html

Exemption Requirements - § 501(c)(6)  ...  "A business league, in general,
is an association of persons having some common business interest, the
purpose of which is to promote such common interest and not to engage in a
regular business of a kind ordinarily carried on for profit."  ...  "No
part of its net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private
shareholder or individual and it may not be organized for profit or
organized to engage in an activity ordinarily carried on for profit (even
if the business is operated on a cooperative basis or produces only
sufficient income to be self-sustaining)."

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I look forward to following your committee's work. In my opinion, the need
for both ARIN and ICANN need to be evaluated in a light that also brings
for-profit companies (like @Home) into the picture.  As a capitalist, I
prefer to see companies like @Home prosper and go from nothing in 1995 to
$11.5 billion dollars in market capitalization with the help of the proper
Internet resources which should not be made scarce by some non-profit
"societies" who seek to hold the economy back and to discriminate between
who gets those resources and who does not.

In conclusion, I hope that your committee finds that non-profit companies
are totally inappropriate and not in keeping with IRS regulations. I hope
that you help to put America back on a track built upon capitalism and not
the socialism and communism that pours from these non-profits who claim to
doing everyone a favor as they collect taxes and attempt to control which
companies succeed and which do not.


Jim Fleming
U.S. Citizen
Naperville, Illinois


[1] @@@@@@@@@@ http://www.house.gov/commerce/schedule.htm

Thursday, July 22, 1999
11:00 a.m. in 2322 Rayburn House Office Building
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on
Domain Name System Privatization: Is ICANN Out of Control?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

[2] @@@@@@@@@@ http://www.house.gov/commerce

Electronic Commerce: Domain Name System

"The National Telecommunications and Information Administration is
currently in the process of turning over management of the Domain Name
System (the system by which numeric Internet addresses are translated into
easy to remember names such as to a newly created non-profit corporation,
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). In 1998,
the Committee undertook oversight of the establishment of ICANN and the
transition from government management to private sector management. The
Committee will continue to monitor the transition of the Domain Name
System to ensure the stability of the Internet."

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

[3] @@@@ http://www.home.net

At Home Corporation was incorporated in Delaware on March 25, 1995.

Initial Board of Directors:
John Doerr, Bruce Ravenel, Larry Romrell, Chris Coles,
James Barksdale (Netscape) and William Randolph Hearst III.

Initial Public Offering (IPO):
10,350,000 shares on July 11, 1997
Underwriters: Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Merrill Lynch & Co., Alex Brown
&Sons, Inc., and Hambrecht & Quist)
Offering Price: $5.25

Recent Stock Price: 45 5/8
Market Capitalization: $11.5 B

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@