ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    98% of DNS Queries to the Root are "Unnecessary"! | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 7 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Not quite fresh news
    by KarlAuerbach on Friday January 24 2003, @09:29AM (#11015)
    User #3243 Info | http://www.cavebear.com/
    The original version of this report came out October 2002 at NANOG 26 in Eugene Oregon.

    In my "day job" I tend to do a lot of interoperability testing - and I can assure you that there is a lot of gear out there on the net that is easily misconfigured, doesn't meet standards, or is badly implemented. And, as this report demonstrates, we all suffer the side effects. (It is worth remembering that an analysis by Christian Huitma a while back indicated that a major component of the perceived delays on the net is due to DNS name resolution queries that have to be retried because the first try was lost by overloaded DNS servers or overloaded paths leading to those servers.)
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Non sequitur
    by phoffman@proper.com on Friday January 24 2003, @03:34PM (#11018)
    User #2063 Info
    >I would think, though, that if we could fix a
    >significant fraction of this problem, and traffic
    >shrank, the case against lots of new TLDs
    >would be even weaker than it is, wouldn't it?

    That would be true only if you believe that the only argument against new TLDs is the load on the root servers. That is not a credible argument. Given that the root server operators have known these numbers for years, they also know that doubling the number of TLDs would not increase the load of legitimate queries all that much.

    Again, the main argument against lots of new TLDs (and this is just one arguement) is that administering them is difficult. ICANN is doing a crappy job of administering the current gTLDs (VGRS can break the DNS rules whenever it feels like it; GNR was only updating its zone once a week; etc.). Imagine how well ICANN would administer a crop of new ones. Until ICANN gets its administrative act together and is willing to crack down on gTLDs that aren't following the rules, adding new ones will only make the DNS less useful.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      That was strange.
      by michael (froomkin@lawUNSPAM.tm) on Friday January 24 2003, @06:09PM (#11019)
      User #4 Info | http://www.discourse.net/
      Boy, now I am totally confused.

      \
      1) Since when does ICANN "administer" TLDs at all?


      2) What sort of "rules" exist, who is breaking them, and what sort of rules should exist? (Then we can talk about who should make them....)


      3) What set of problems of TLD registry behavior would not be ameliorated by greater competition among TLDs of the sort you would get from lots more? In other words, wouldn't more TLDs be better in every respect (other than incumbents' profits) than fewer?

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:That was strange.
        by Anonymous on Friday January 24 2003, @08:13PM (#11020)
        "What sort of "rules" exist, who is breaking them, and what sort of rules should exist?" Here's one example Michael: Where are the Registry reports from Afilias which they were obliged to submit under Appendix U of the ICANN-Registry Agreement? These were a central part of the NewTLDs Evaluation Process, and they were mandatory... part of the accounting for what happened and evaluation of what could be done better. Under the terms of Appendix U, these reports were "open" and available for publication (apart from a very few separate sections) - and most should have been available 9 months ago, some 6 months ago. Why has ICANN withheld them?
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:That was strange.
          by michael (froomkin@lawUNSPAM.tm) on Friday January 24 2003, @08:19PM (#11021)
          User #4 Info | http://www.discourse.net/
          OK, that's either rule breaking by Afilias, or ICANN sitting on the report because they haven't gotten around to reading it. But since my point was that I was having trouble seeing what sort of "rule-breaking" problem wouldn't be cured by more TLDs, identifying a report that is relevant only to whether we should have more TLDs is sort of ironic: adopt my view, make more TLDs, you really don't need the report...
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    The Argument for New TLD's
    by jberryhill on Friday January 24 2003, @09:05PM (#11022)
    User #3013 Info

    ...is simple.

    Just what TLD's are those 13% looking for?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]


    Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com