Simon and all,

  Let me first say that when reading this post I found some of what you are
saying Simon a bit askew here.  So let's see if I can sift through some of that.

Simon Hackett wrote:

> >- According to AURSC, 20 million internet users can already access to
> >our alternate DNS.
>
> Prove it.

  First of all it is not incumbent on Adam to PROVE anything.  I happen to know
that he can prove it, but that is another story.  You can determine the truth of
this
contention yourself is you wish to take the time.  If you don't than you really
aren't
interested in weather it is fact or not.

  In addition Adam has offered to provide such evidence here on this list should

you or anyone with to sigh an agreement.  Evidently non of you in Australia
do wish to, so I take it that you either don't really want the info or you are
afraid of the consequences of signing the agreement that Adam has offered
to provide you with the "Proof" you seek.  That is a dilemma that is for YOU
as individuals to solve.

>
>
> >
> >- IRSC doesn't destroy anything : we just add new TLDs to legacy gTLDs,
> >ccTLDs and other alternate gTLDs.
> >
>
> And presumes that your confederation is somehow 'more worthy' for the world
> to use and rely on for critical DNS resolution functions than the existing
> root servers, and presumes that your confereration is the only such
> confederation - because any other, parallel, confederation which created a
> TLD identical to one in your private universe would set up an un-resolvable
> contradiction between your intersts and the interests of that other
> confederation.

  Simon, you must have missed a previous post of Jim's on this issue.  IPv8 or
any alternative Root server structure does not suggest anything that would
be contradictory in any way necessarily.  Yes it is possible, but not done
purposefully.  You assertion of such intent is a paranoiac behavior that seems
a bit extraordinary to say the least.

>
>
> Conistently ignoring these issues is what makes you look silly.

  They are by no means ignoring anything of the sort.  Read Jims post on this
issue.  Jim, repost it privately to Simon will ya?  That way he can feel more
secure.

>
>
> >To access all that new Internet wealth, DNS servers configuration is
> >EASY AND NON-DISRUPTIVE. So why don't you all test it, as users or
> >providers, before judging it ???
> >
>
> Because it's not a question of whether it works or not. Technically, it'll
> work (although it is likely to fail to scale if you actually get what you
> seem to want, lots of users - how were you going to fund properly
> provisioned root server sites, by the way?)

  Funding is the least difficult problem.

>
>
> The real problem is that logically, and rationally, it's a stupid thing to
> be doing, just to pander to your egos in supporting your creation of new
> TLD's with no rational process to back up their creation and maintenance.

  You obviously did not read Jim's posting in response to the NTIA nor
Jay Fenello's testimony to the US congress.  Pleas do yourself that favor.
Also there have been RSC root servers up and running for almost two years.
Iperdome and Alternic are tow examples of such.  This is not an Ego thing
it is a understanding of filling a perceived need from a niche of customers.

> It's not a technical issue at its 'root'. It is one of a strange misuse of
> ego-mania.
>
> Look, if I set up a new fake root nameserver (which is all you are doing)
> and put .POKEY into it, containing entries that suit me, will YOU link to
> it, will you add it into your confederation?
>
> Now - note that .POKEY already exists in your private conferated universe.
> Does that modify your answer to the preceeding question?
>
> If you won't, why won't you - why am I less worthy that you are?

  Your "Worthiness" is not in question.  You attitude may be.

>
>
> >As some people from this list pointed it, we could have "created" TLDs
> >on a whim, for jokes, or anything else : but we didn't.
>
> Oh yes, you did - .POKEY is the signature example of precisely this being
> done. And Adam is even *proud* of it (check his AURSC web site). I'm sure
> you'll remove some in the future on just such a whim as well.

  Possibly.

>
>
> >
> >All TLDs are administered/created/replaced under consensus with
> >"neighbor nets" partners. Uncentral administration, as the Internet as a
> >whole should be managed, on a bottom-up basis...
> >
>
> It can be, with ONE SINGLE EXCEPTION, which is the root servers. And they
> HAVE to be centrally managed in terms of decision making processes, because
> although user expansion of the DNS tree happens at the leaves, all DNS
> accesses originate from the root of the tree, and it has to be the same
> tree, so that everything works as it should.

  ANd all trees have many roots.  The Legacy Root structure, unfortunately does
not have many roots.  Hence that foundation is weak.

>
>
> Precisely who (real people, email addresses etc pls) manage the process of
> that "consensus" ?How were they chosen? How are they removed if they
> misbehave? What is their code of conduct and where is it documented?

  Maybe Jim can answer this one.  Jim?  I know he has a list somewhere.

>
>
> It's impossible not to know about Adam Todd (to readers of this list at
> least), but precisely who else *is* the AURSC? I didn't vote for 'em...

  What does your voting got to do with it?

>
>
> ...S
> ---
> Simon Hackett, Technical Director, Internode Systems Pty Ltd
> 31 York St [PO Box 284, Rundle Mall], Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia
> Email: simon§internode.com.au  Web: http://www.on.net
> Phone: +61-8-8223-2999          Fax: +61-8-8223-1777

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1§ix.netcom.com