[109562] in Cypherpunks
BIND, DNS, monopolies, freedom
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (damaged justice)
Mon Mar 29 20:40:20 1999
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 20:19:51 -0500
From: damaged justice <frogfarm@hempseed.com>
To: cypherpunks@algebra.com
Reply-To: damaged justice <frogfarm@hempseed.com>
Excerpts from http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/03/29/136224
>There will never be a free domain name system
There will never be a free press either. Who would pay for the ink,
the paper, the printing presses themselves?
Wait a minute...you mean free like "free beer" don't you? Oops, my
mistake!
[snip]
The only reason NSI has that much power is becase we all cooperate
volunteerily by pointing our name server software exclusively at their
root servers. Anyone out there can set up a root server (I and a
friend did it once to see what would be involved. Took about 2 hours
to figure everything out and create a .linux domain that 2 machines in
the whole wild world could see.)
The way current DNS software works, you DO have to be careful not to
pollute anyone else's root servers, but anyone out there with a UNIX
box and a dedicated connection could redefine the entire internet
however they wanted to for anyone who cared to point their name
servers to the new root servers.
Note that this has been attempted in the past (Do your research on the
alternic and others) but they did not really have a lot of support and
if I recall correctly some of them tried a silly stunt or two that was
bad judgement at its worst.
Anyway, it can be done and there's an increasing need for it to be
done. If anyone comes up with something, I'll be happy to point my DNS
at them.
[snip]
NSI is pushing their luck (Score:1)
by Dredd13 on Monday March 29, @09:48AM EDT
http://www.megacity.org/
At the same time, there are a few people from the NANOG mailing list,
myself included, who are trying to work up a "secure whois" RFC, one
which would allow people to search the whois database, but either (a)
after authenticating, so that whois-db-harvesters can be stopped, or
(b) providing limited information for a select quantity of requests
per day if the request is unauthenticated.
Any open solution should also be prepared to incorporate that as well,
since that is the "shield" that NSI hides behind these days, is
protecting themselves from the harvesters, domain-squatters, etc.
[snip]
Freely available to all (Score:1)
by mwa on Monday March 29, @12:00PM EDT
So... If we file an FOIA request for the contents of the database, it
would force NSF do make a request for a copy. If Network Pollutions
complies, they agree it's not proprietary. If they don't comply, NSF
will be forced to make the legal challenge in order to comply with the
FOIA request.
Well, maybe?
mwa@gate.net
Freely available to all (Score:2)
by [325]gordoni (gordoni@base.com) on Monday March 29, @12:26PM EDT
http://www.base.com/
Nope, a FOIA request won't work, it's already been tried...
In responding to a FOIA request submitted by Corsearch in 1996
requesting a copy of the domain name database ([328]NSF FOIA No.
96-090 Request), the NSF claimed ([329]NSF FOIA No. 96-090 Response):
"NSF does not possess or control the domain name database ..."
An administrative appeal of this decision was made ([330]NSF FOIA No.
96-090 Appeal). This appeal was rejected. The words "possess" and
"control" are being used here in the context of the Freedom of
Information Act to determine if the database is an "agency record",
and not in respect of claims to ownership of intellectual property.
These are the same terms used in the FLITE case ([331]Baizer v.
Department of the Air Force, 887 F. Supp. 225 (N.D. Cal. 1995). The
FLITE decision has been criticized for its "broad assertion of an
exemption from FOIA for 'library' materials, and its questionable use
of legal precedent" ([332] Supreme Court Decisions in FLITE database,
Information Policy Notes, Taxpayers Assets Project). The Flite
decision draws upon the Supreme Court decision in [333]Department of
Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 US 136 (1989).
So, the NSF has the right to obtain a copy of the database from
Network Solutions, but because the NSF has not chosen to obtain the
database, it is not possible to obtain the database from the NSF under
the FOIA. And even if the NSF did have a copy of the database, it is
not clear, in the light of the FLITE decision, whether the NSF would
be required to make the database available under the FOIA.
* [328]http://www.base.com/gordoni/thoughts/dns-control/nsf-foia-96-
090-request.html
* [329]http://www.base.com/gordoni/thoughts/dns-control/nsf-foia-96-
090-response.html
* [330]http://www.base.com/gordoni/thoughts/dns-control/nsf-foia-96-
090-appeal.html
* [331]http://www.base.com/gordoni/thoughts/dns-control/legal/flite.
txt
* [332]http://www.essential.org/listproc/tap-info/0185.html
* [333]http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=492&in
vol=136
DNS Root (Score:1)
by [353]RealUlli (ujans@ullisys.pond.sub.org) on Monday March 29,
@10:55AM EDT
http://home.pages.de/~RealUlli/
Probably we should all take a look at [356]The Internet Namespace
Cooperative and switch to using their services...
NSI starts looking like Micro$oft, so probably we should use a DNS
that looks and acts like some free OS... :-)
* [356]http://tinc.ies-energy.com/
Bank Accuses NSI of misleading investors (Score:1)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 29, @12:20PM EDT
From the this just in department at techweb.
An investment bank in New York claims NSI misled investors into
believing that their contract would be extended or that it can not be
entirely terminated.
Check it out [380]here
* [380]http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990326S0023
Bank Accuses NSI of misleading investors
by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 29, @07:01PM EDT
This is precisely why NSI had to announce that they owned the data;
otherwise, the Prospectus for their public stock offering was a lie
(it also claimed this), and thus NSI would be guilty of fraud.
The [383]Securities & Exchange Commission which regulates the
financial markets takes a very dim view of such things. Potentially,
the officers and directors of NSI could be held criminally liable, and
face prison time in addition to stiff fines.
Personally, I look forward to seeing those bastards strung up by their
toes. The most enraging thing about this whole affair is NSI's rank
incompetence in operating a key piece of Internet infrastructure,
which has threatened the stability of the Internet as a whole.
Where [384]ICANN is concerned, I'm willing to play "wait & see"; the
most worrisome thing about them is that they also appear to be vying
for some kind of control. They need to understand that they merely
perform a service and administration function at the pleasure of the
[385]IETF, and not the other way around as they have been claiming.
* [383]http://www.sec.gov/
* [384]http://www.icann.org/
* [385]http://www.ietf.org/
--
frogfarm@[yakko.cs.wmich.edu | hempseed.com | geocities.com ] ICQ #859-0985
this is my stop excuse me... if i'm wrong please correct
got to get off excuse me... you're standing on my neck...
i might go pop i've got to be direct ...la la LA la la...
