Discuss mailing list

[Alejandro Bonet <albogoal AT gmail.com>]

Alex:

It will be very pleasant to me to debate with you, because you respect
different ideas.

Well, the first day i setup my first T2 server, i asked in the chat if
i could run some tests on others servers and someone (i dont remember
who) answer me... "What kind of tests?"

I tell him "about one dig query each hour", and he says me "This is
perfectly legal".

I run these tests during a month (more or less) and then switch off
these tests. Since three months (more or less) i didn't run any test.
But, no matter this, i dont understand what is the problem with such
kind of tests, please explain me it if you want.

By other side, if you run the official Jeff Taylor T2 test on any of
my servers, you will see they pass it perfectly. Included of course
NXDOMAIN.

But, from my point of view, to answer NXDOMAIN is not "completely
fair" if you are asked about registro.ibu: It seems you are "hijacking
it" or as if "you dont know it exists" which is not true (both)...

Please, Alex, understand this is a complex problem about
"pseudo-ownership" or "fair play"...
There are no easy answers to some questions: This is public DNS!!

I dont think anybody has the ownership of any word. But these words
permits us to reach machines on internet. And there are many forms for
naming machines: some better and some worse... Intention and content
is only one of the keys, but there are some other i cant visualize or
describe...

This is public DNS, again!!!

In my humble opinion, if some person or group say publicly "Hey guys,
i will manage .xyz tld and the authoritative servers are 1.2.3.4 and
5.6.7.8", any open comunity like opennic must take in consideration at
least four BASIC AND CLEAR RULES:

1.- It does not conflict with other group or person claiming about the same 
tld.
2.- It is not a "universal concept" which can generate conflicts on future.
3.- They run stable and public authoritative dns servers for that tld.
4.- They run a stable and public registry web, with a set of "reasonable 
rules".

(Whatever you could understand by "reasonable rules"...)

The rest is, of course, decission of the rest of dns servers
operators: They could say "I dont know anything about .xyz", or they
can say ".xyz dns is at 1.2.3.4 ip address" when they receive a query
about .xyz

I prefer the second option and i think it is more fair than the first.
I dont know what is thinking or doing the host querying my server, but
i suposse that this host asking about .xyz prefer to receive any
reasonable answer than NXDOMAIN.

Most times, the person asking about foo-bar.xyz is the "owner" of that
domain, or a friend of the "owner", or he heard about that domain and
he want to visit it. As we are public dns servers, we must to try to
resolve any query as better as we can.

Is this an "universal rule i can strecht until infinite and i can
response allways to any query, perhaps sending the client to my blog
if he/she asking me for some domain i dont know" ?

Of course it isn't: This is what here we named as "hijacking the user".

If you answer me NXDOMAIN i understand "you dont know anything about that".
And this is a very important answer that MUST EXIST, but it means what
it means and it say what it say.

But im sure you understand the difference.

...

We decided democratically at the .ibu domain to resolve conflicts with
unanimity of very few persons, not for "control or hijack the .ibu
names", else for simplicity.

But as i can see i didnt make a good work to explain it.

We dont know where exactly is the frontier between "fair" and "unfair"
usage of the names.

Personally i have serious doubts about if that frontier exists or it is clear.

It is very complex, subjective and there is not easy answers. But we
understand there are "clearly fair usages" and "potentially
conflictive usages", and judges must notice users if this second
situation happens, and only if it happens.

This "notice" serve to one objective: Appeal to user responsability in
the use of this "potentially conflictive domain name".

We dont understand freedom without responsability. These are "two
sides of the same coin".
(I dont know how this is said in english, it is a "spanish phrase
translation"...)

But think if we need to call for a vote for each domain, to each
member, if there are hundreds or thousands members or domains...

Democracy was not propossed and accepted by all of us to paralyze activity.

But, of course: If there is a very interesting case judges cant
manage, the users must say whatever they think about it, and any
decission must be democratic.

As "citizen" i want to participate in collective decissions affecting
me, but i dont want to be asked thousand times each day...

There must be more automated mechanisms to avoid abuses or conflicts
in registering domains...

About peering: Yes, we think this is the natural way to collaborate and flow.

Decentralized, automatizable, neutral, balanced, equalitary, free,
independent, easy to coordinate...

I only can see good things on it...

And this is exactly we are propossing opennic and each of its members:
Collaborate as P2P.

Well... I think i say too much and im boring you...

We have fair intention.
And we are spaniards.

These two things are not mutually incompatible as everybody can
understand: There is good people all around the world. Allways and
forever.

Our intention is only to create new forms to understand the internet,
and new names people can use to connect to it and between them. We are
not forcing anybody to do nothing.

We dont want to catch and jail all of anything... We are only making a
proposal of three letters dont conflict (as far as we know) with
nothing at all, but useful to get another way to comunicate and
collaborate between us, no matter where we are.

Alejandro Bonet
albogoal AT gmail.com

PD: You don't imagine the effort i need to do to express all of this
in english, which is not my natural language...

Thanks, best wishes and good food.


2014/1/18, Quinn Wood <wood.quinn.s AT gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Alex Hanselka <alex AT opennicproject.org>
> wrote:
>> In closing, please at least try to keep this civil.  It isn't
>> constructive or helpful for us to just exchange insults.
>>
> You smell bad21.
>