Another reader's comment on Stuart Lynn's unique root paper
Date: Tuesday July 10 2001, @03:53PM
Topic: Alternate Roots

fnord writes "The ICANN dragon eradication project now has its hunting license."

Some of the cluster bombs have already been dropped. Unlike both former Chair Dyson and present Chair Cerf, as well as assorted other BoD members, Lynn takes a live and let die attitude towards BTW, Lynn's assertion that doesn't do email was already out of date before publication.'s plugin now does email after a fashion. It will be interesting to see if this creates a Hotmail-like viral marketing effect.

This latest salvo for the hearts and minds also references another ivory tower water balloon from Ben Edelman, this one directed at IOD's .web, ostensibly to spur discussion on related issues. Perhaps Edelman's next project could be an analysis of ICANN's root, where a majority of the SLD's also don't resolve, and where the top five registrants own over a million SLD's, just to spur more discussion.

This is the second time we've seen the Lynn/Edelman one-two punch combo that passes for consensus. One is unlikely to award them a TKO just yet, perhaps they could start by pointing out one single documented collision in the wild. -g

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Another reader's comment on Stuart Lynn's unique root paper | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 43 comments | Search Discussion
Click this button to post a comment to this story
The options below will change how the comments display
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.
Something Else Used to be Here
by michael ( on Wednesday July 11 2001, @09:24AM (#1174)
User #4 Info |
I have deleted a comment in this thread on the grounds that it was vile and repulsive. Our FAQ states our policy on deleting posts. I think this is the third post I have deleted since we switched to a system allowing unlimited unmoderated posting. I regret the necessity.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re: Another reader's comment on Stuart Lynn's uniq
by Anonymous on Wednesday July 11 2001, @11:15AM (#1176)

I find the amount of conspiracy theories around here amazing.

Can't you even imagine that someone may just be curious to understand what the claims put forth by some of the alternative roots actually mean? 24000 registered domains sound like quite a lot, and they sound like there is a large user base behind these domains (user, not registrant!). So the question how many of these domains are actually up and running is certainly a valid one.

It's, in particular, the very question I've been asking myself after Ben had published his .biz findings. I donwloaded .web's zone file, ran a few awk scripts against it, and did some checks. Very quickly, some image of what .web really is was evolving. I then suggested to Ben that .web could be a worthwile object of more research.

I may not have been the only one to make this suggestion. But please note that not everything which doesn't paint the alternative roots in the most friendly colours ever has to be some conspiracy-powered mud-slinging.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re: Another reader's comment on Stuart Lynn's uniq
by fnord ( on Tuesday July 10 2001, @09:10PM (#1156)
User #2810 Info
I didn't assail Ben harshly, at least not yet. The failure to disclose and provide the numerous 'custom scripts' he uses is a loophole one could drive a very big academic truck through, par example. No, for now, I merely question of what use it is to point out that there are x number of registrants in ARNI's .biz or IOD's .web, or that the top five registrants 'own' x number of domain names, or that x percentage of those names resolve via hypertext transfer protocol. Milton Mueller is absolutely correct, without a premise and conclusion, these numbers are completely devoid of any usefulness whatsoever.

The simple fact is that the same analysis can be done with .com/net/org and one is left with a difference of degree, not of kind, the degree being far less than a newbie could be forgiven for assuming. If B. Edelman had set out to prove or disprove (proving a negative being a dicey matter) that there were dragons, that would be one thing. Instead he is merely haggling over the size of the herd.

One of ICANN's original mandates was to take into account the interests of all stakeholders, there was no proviso that bigger was better, that measuring the size of a stakeholder through some metric or another was indicative, let alone definitive, of anything more than SFA (sweet fsck all). The current flurry of 'policy' papers and 'independent' analyses would have us believe that two SLD's good, four SLD's better, though one would search in vain for even one single solitary legacy RFC that supports the concept that size matters.

As a remote participant in a few years of the Berkman center's coverage of ICANN's public (I've no legal access to the private) BoD meetings (less those I boycotted during RealNetworks spyware period), and as an early adopter of the hardware and software and concept of convergence, I've winced when others complained about which other remote participants' questions were passed on to the board, or when others questioned whether the scribe's notes were accurate. Having been at the head end of such productions I was aware of the incredible legerdemain involved, and urged patience and understanding for the staff during at least one such webcast. So far as I was concerned they were above repute.

Imagine my surprise then, whilst truckin' down the infobahn, to see Caesar's wife out walking the street. Protestations that one is only out there (in a skimpy dress) because one has always had an academic interest in the migratory patterns of dragons somehow fails to answer all my unasked questions. -g

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re: Another reader's comment on Stuart Lynn's uniq
by hofjes on Wednesday July 11 2001, @07:27AM (#1169)
User #60 Info
I don't think this is the place to promote your business.

How many registrations exist in the .st domain space?

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 9 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • This article comes from ICANNWatch

    The URL for this story is: