Alternative Roots: Difference between revisions

Line 33:

* Russian National Domain Name System

==Issues==

==Reasons Alternative Root Projects Have Developed==

* [[Name Collision]]: Conflicts can occur in user experience and functionality when there are identical TLDs that do not match in their delegation, which is why some form of centralized coordination is important in adding names to roots, such as we see with ICANN. The .biz TLD created by Pacific Root was in operation before ICANN proposed running .biz, and at least one of the alternative root servers resolves .biz to Pacific Root's. There are .biz domain names that exist in different roots and point to different IP addresses. The possibility of such conflicts, and their potential for destabilizing the Internet, is the main source of controversy surrounding alt roots.

# In 2005, [[Paul Vixie]], a member of the [[ISC]] F-Root team and involved in maintaining [[BIND]], a popular open-source implementation of DNS, suggested to [[RSSAC]] that [[ICANN]] create an alternate root zone so that the technical community could add features like [[IDN|internationalized domain names]], [[IPv6]], and [[DNSSEC]] without disrupting older DNS behavior.<ref>[https://circleid.com/posts/20160330_let_me_make_yeti_dns_perfectly_clear Vixie, Let Me Make Yeti-DNS Perfectly Clear, CircleID]</ref>

* Lack of [[Internet Governance|governance]], especially in decentralized systems such as that making use of [[Blockchain]].<ref>Tyler Mason, GoDaddy Blockchain Domain Names Webinar, 12/1/2021</ref> However, the [[Multi-stakeholder Model|coordination]] required to encompass many voices and views and build consensus is glacial in contrast to the pace of pioneering and innovation in unregulated spaces.

* [[Data Privacy]]:

==Theories on Why Alternative Root Projects Fail==

* [[Cybersecurity|security]]:

* Paul Vixie explains that “any set of DNS root name servers that serves any DNS root zone that did not come from IANA is an ‘alternate root’...[M]any attempts to fork the IANA name space and offer non-standard top level domains...has failed. Often that failure followed public ridicule by me. I think alternate roots of the ‘name space fork’ variety are a terrible idea for the global Internet, although I recognize the need for this kind of name space augmentation inside many enterprise networks...Vibrant competition among Internet name spaces is bad for all of us—bad for business, bad for freedom of expression, bad for national and personal security."<ref>[https://circleid.com/posts/20160330_let_me_make_yeti_dns_perfectly_clear Vixie, Let Me Make Yeti-DNS Perfectly Clear, CircleID]</ref>

* Functionality: Only people could view sites or send emails to people using domains in these alternative TLDs. This could be improved through the use of special helper applications, or if a custom configuration was made to their computer, or to their nameservers, or a custom configuration at an ISP upstream in the DNS hierarchy. None of these solutions were as comprehensive as being listed in the default nameservers that are seen when an operating system starts. Whilst technically trivial to set up, actually running a reliable root server network, in the long run, is a serious undertaking, requiring multiple servers to be kept running 24/7 in geographically diverse locations. During the dot-com boom, some alt-root providers believed that there were substantial profits to be made from providing alternative top-level domains. Only a small proportion of ISPs actually use any of the zones served by alt-root operators, generally sticking to the ICANN-specified root servers. This in turn led to the commercial failure of several alternative DNS root providers.

* Costs:

==On-Going Issues==

* [[IP|brand protection]]:

# Fragmentation: Concerns have been raised over how alternative roots could lead to the technical, governmental, and commercial splintering of the Internet.<ref>[https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_FII_Internet_Fragmentation_An_Overview_2016.pdf William J. Drake, Vinton G. Cerf, Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Internet Fragmentation, World Economic Forum 2016]</ref>

# [[Name Collision]]: Conflicts can occur in user experience and functionality when there are identical TLDs that do not match in their delegation, which is why some form of centralized coordination is important in adding names to roots, such as we see with ICANN. The .biz TLD created by Pacific Root was in operation before ICANN proposed running .biz, and at least one of the alternative root servers resolves .biz to Pacific Root's. There are .biz domain names that exist in different roots and point to different IP addresses. The possibility of such conflicts, and their potential for destabilizing the Internet, is the main source of controversy surrounding alt roots.

# Lack of [[Internet Governance|governance]], especially in decentralized systems such as that making use of [[Blockchain]].<ref>Tyler Mason, GoDaddy Blockchain Domain Names Webinar, 12/1/2021</ref> However, the [[Multi-stakeholder Model|coordination]] required to encompass many voices and views and build consensus is glacial in contrast to the pace of pioneering and innovation in unregulated spaces.

# [[Data Privacy]]:

# [[Cybersecurity|security]]:

# Functionality: Only people could view sites or send emails to people using domains in these alternative TLDs. This could be improved through the use of special helper applications, or if a custom configuration was made to their computer, or to their nameservers, or a custom configuration at an ISP upstream in the DNS hierarchy. None of these solutions were as comprehensive as being listed in the default nameservers that are seen when an operating system starts. Whilst technically trivial to set up, actually running a reliable root server network, in the long run, is a serious undertaking, requiring multiple servers to be kept running 24/7 in geographically diverse locations. During the dot-com boom, some alt-root providers believed that there were substantial profits to be made from providing alternative top-level domains. Only a small proportion of ISPs actually use any of the zones served by alt-root operators, generally sticking to the ICANN-specified root servers. This in turn led to the commercial failure of several alternative DNS root providers.

# Costs:

# [[IP|brand protection]]:

==ICANN's stance==

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 * Russian National Domain Name System
-==Issues==
+==Reasons Alternative Root Projects Have Developed==
-* [[Name Collision]]: Conflicts can occur in user experience and functionality when there are identical TLDs that do not match in their delegation, which is why some form of centralized coordination is important in adding names to roots, such as we see with ICANN. The .biz TLD created by Pacific Root was in operation before ICANN proposed running .biz, and at least one of the alternative root servers resolves .biz to Pacific Root's. There are .biz domain names that exist in different roots and point to different IP addresses. The possibility of such conflicts, and their potential for destabilizing the Internet, is the main source of controversy surrounding alt roots.
+# In 2005, [[Paul Vixie]], a member of the [[ISC]] F-Root team and involved in maintaining [[BIND]], a popular open-source implementation of DNS, suggested to [[RSSAC]] that [[ICANN]] create an alternate root zone so that the technical community could add features like [[IDN|internationalized domain names]], [[IPv6]], and [[DNSSEC]] without disrupting older DNS behavior.<ref>[https://circleid.com/posts/20160330_let_me_make_yeti_dns_perfectly_clear Vixie, Let Me Make Yeti-DNS Perfectly Clear, CircleID]</ref>
-* Lack of [[Internet Governance|governance]], especially in decentralized systems such as that making use of [[Blockchain]].<ref>Tyler Mason, GoDaddy Blockchain Domain Names Webinar, 12/1/2021</ref> However, the [[Multi-stakeholder Model|coordination]] required to encompass many voices and views and build consensus is glacial in contrast to the pace of pioneering and innovation in unregulated spaces.
-* [[Data Privacy]]:
+==Theories on Why Alternative Root Projects Fail==
-* [[Cybersecurity|security]]:
+* Paul Vixie explains that “any set of DNS root name servers that serves any DNS root zone that did not come from IANA is an ‘alternate root’...[M]any attempts to fork the IANA name space and offer non-standard top level domains...has failed. Often that failure followed public ridicule by me. I think alternate roots of the ‘name space fork’ variety are a terrible idea for the global Internet, although I recognize the need for this kind of name space augmentation inside many enterprise networks...Vibrant competition among Internet name spaces is bad for all of us—bad for business, bad for freedom of expression, bad for national and personal security."<ref>[https://circleid.com/posts/20160330_let_me_make_yeti_dns_perfectly_clear Vixie, Let Me Make Yeti-DNS Perfectly Clear, CircleID]</ref>
-* Functionality: Only people could view sites or send emails to people using domains in these alternative TLDs. This could be improved through the use of special helper applications, or if a custom configuration was made to their computer, or to their nameservers, or a custom configuration at an ISP upstream in the DNS hierarchy. None of these solutions were as comprehensive as being listed in the default nameservers that are seen when an operating system starts. Whilst technically trivial to set up, actually running a reliable root server network, in the long run, is a serious undertaking, requiring multiple servers to be kept running 24/7 in geographically diverse locations. During the dot-com boom, some alt-root providers believed that there were substantial profits to be made from providing alternative top-level domains. Only a small proportion of ISPs actually use any of the zones served by alt-root operators, generally sticking to the ICANN-specified root servers. This in turn led to the commercial failure of several alternative DNS root providers.
-* Costs:
+==On-Going Issues==
-* [[IP|brand protection]]:
+# Fragmentation: Concerns have been raised over how alternative roots could lead to the technical, governmental, and commercial splintering of the Internet.<ref>[https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_FII_Internet_Fragmentation_An_Overview_2016.pdf William J. Drake, Vinton G. Cerf, Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Internet Fragmentation, World Economic Forum 2016]</ref>
+# [[Name Collision]]: Conflicts can occur in user experience and functionality when there are identical TLDs that do not match in their delegation, which is why some form of centralized coordination is important in adding names to roots, such as we see with ICANN. The .biz TLD created by Pacific Root was in operation before ICANN proposed running .biz, and at least one of the alternative root servers resolves .biz to Pacific Root's. There are .biz domain names that exist in different roots and point to different IP addresses. The possibility of such conflicts, and their potential for destabilizing the Internet, is the main source of controversy surrounding alt roots.
+# Lack of [[Internet Governance|governance]], especially in decentralized systems such as that making use of [[Blockchain]].<ref>Tyler Mason, GoDaddy Blockchain Domain Names Webinar, 12/1/2021</ref> However, the [[Multi-stakeholder Model|coordination]] required to encompass many voices and views and build consensus is glacial in contrast to the pace of pioneering and innovation in unregulated spaces.
+# [[Data Privacy]]:
+# [[Cybersecurity|security]]:
+# Functionality: Only people could view sites or send emails to people using domains in these alternative TLDs. This could be improved through the use of special helper applications, or if a custom configuration was made to their computer, or to their nameservers, or a custom configuration at an ISP upstream in the DNS hierarchy. None of these solutions were as comprehensive as being listed in the default nameservers that are seen when an operating system starts. Whilst technically trivial to set up, actually running a reliable root server network, in the long run, is a serious undertaking, requiring multiple servers to be kept running 24/7 in geographically diverse locations. During the dot-com boom, some alt-root providers believed that there were substantial profits to be made from providing alternative top-level domains. Only a small proportion of ISPs actually use any of the zones served by alt-root operators, generally sticking to the ICANN-specified root servers. This in turn led to the commercial failure of several alternative DNS root providers.
+# Costs:
+# [[IP|brand protection]]:
 ==ICANN's stance==