% 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).