At 18:58 19/06/98 +1000, Reagan wrote:
>> 3.  What RSC is run by a single individual?  None to my knowledge?
>
>Considering by definition, that a Confederation precludes being a single 
>individual, then the answer to that would be 'none.'

Ohhh Reagan - your good :)

>Thats not to say that a single person cannot run a Root Server.

Your smart too!

>In fact, I'm  sure there are many people out there running "root" servers
>with their own TLDs.

And intuitive!  Yes your not far wrong on that point.

>They may not be offering the use of those to people outside
>their organisation and/or network,  or perhaps they are.  The thing is,

SOme are using their own servers purely for their own interest.  We listed
a few last month.  .DOT and .BOFH were two we found by accident :)

>that you cant know what every other person in the world is doing with
>their machines,  and unless you have some sort of "authority" over a given
>space  (presumably handed down via a chain from IANA) you can't tell 
>weather or not you are going to be conflicting with other people.

This is true and the exact reason IRSC is trying very hard to provide an
initial coordination effort to ensure conflict doesn't arise.  So far to
date, we've found a few, and either solved them or let people go their own
way.

Internet = cooperation.

Some people STILL don't realise this.

>> >The big problem with this isn't that nearly everyone can't see them - the
>> >problems would really start if a statistically significant number of DNS
>> >resolvers *could* see them - because there can be more than one of them!
>> 
>> More than one of what?
>> 
>
>More than one RSC with the same TLD.

I think he might have been refering to Caching DN Servers, I'm not sure -
still waiting for clarification.  Can't answer the question otherwise.

Even then, with the few RSC's that have clashed, in most cases these have
been resolved.  There are only a few ambit claims now, mostly conflicts
created by the IAHC, but they hold no weight as they aren't online.

>> This is very true.  That's why credability and authentication is required
>> and that's done through cooperative agreements.  Just like the Legacy 
>
>How does one get that credibility and authentication?

Be IANA I guess :)  Isn't that where the entire debate is now?  Oh yes,
sorry i forgot the Green Paper asked us to address that.  I did.  Australia
put in a collective response - 30 days late.

But hell, what woudl you expect from Australians.  On time?  Advanced? Bah.

>It would seem by your actions, that one gains this credibility by pushing
>for everyone to use your service, and calling them names if they don't 
>jump at the wonderful opportunity you are giving them. (Speaking of

Oh Reagan, I'm not calling people who don't use AURSC names.  I have no
issue with people doing as they please.

What I do have issue with is people who have never used AURSC or any IRSC
resource making clainms that it doesn't work, fails, doesn't work ...

>which..  the word "Twonk" isn't necessarily a FIDO term.  I've heard

It does find it's origins in Fido land :)  At least that's the claim.

>it in many places over the years - mostly from non-computer-enthusiasts
>who would have had zero contact with the Fidonet world)

Interesting.  But language gets used till such time as it becomes common.

>> Now the IRSC is recognised also, it simply adds more weight.
>
>Recognised by whom?

Well certainly by it's membership, and opponents.  That's probably the
larger mix of International Stake holders.

I'm recognised walking in the streets of my town.  I am therfore recognised
by the people whom know of me.  I'm sure if I walked through San Fransicso,
I'd not receive the same recognision, but stranger things have happened.

>> Your no longer providing full internet access.  You are in fact censoring
>> the access the user has to suite your own political motivations.
>
>What if I've never heard of one of these new RSC's, and one of my users
>wishes to make use of a site in their TLD.

Yes.

>Is it still my fault for not knowing about them and changing my
>configuration to accomodate them?

Of course not.  The user should know enough - certainly there is now ENOUGH
information through the world, to allow you or the user to solve the problem.

>If I dont have the time, or resources to continually update
>my DNS setup to enable resolution for every new RSC that someone
>comes up with, is that still censorship?

IRSC aims to solve this problem. But it's done through COOPERATION.  The
same way in which you allow me to use your computers and I to use mine.

A coordinated effort allows people like yourself with limited time and
resources to avoid issues of trying to work out what and where, and still
give you direct input in case problems arise, or you just want to say
something.

>> All servers visible on the public internet are for use by the public.  And
>> Significant numbers are using alternatives, you just don't want to believe 
>
>
>You want us to beleive that so much.  Yet every time I check,  I can't 
>resolve these alternate domains using the recommended DNS setup from 
>the ISP i'm testing from.  This includes ISPs in both Australia and 
>the United States.

OK, so your claim now is that your ISP is the only provider of correct
answers.

Can your ISP provide you with ATM connectivity?  Does that mean that ATM
does not exist?

>Feel free to send me mail backing up your 20 million figure quoted in a 
>previous message.

If you make yourself a member of the AURSC you will receive this
information upon request, but I'm not at liberty to provide the information
for fear that the members will be harassed.  They have limited time to
waste on people calling them names and wasting their valuable time.

>> Do you drive a Model T Ford by any chance?
>
>
>What advancements does the AURSC hold over the Legacy servers?  I'm assuming 

1.  Additional TLD resolution.
2.  Input into and partiipation in the operation of AURSC resources
3.  Localised Resolution, hopefully leading to faster answers
4.  Some localised routing paths, allowing cheaper DNS
5.  I'm sure there are many more.

>thats what you are implying from your question about the Model T?  Oh, hang
>on.. that contradicts the statement that neither has more worthyness than
>the other...  so what does the question about the Model T mean to imply?

Let me paraphrase it as a question:  "If the Model T Ford is the only TRUE
car in the world, what do you drive?  A figment of your imagination?"