IP: "Postel Disputes" The Economist

[David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

I dispote some of the "conclusions" make djf


http://www.economist.com/issue/08-02-97/st4139.html






The Internet


Postel disputes


GOD, at least in the West, is often represented as a man with a flowing
beard and sandals. Users of the Internet might be forgiven for feeling that
nature is imitating art--for if the Net does have a god he is probably Jon
Postel, a man who matches that description to a T. Mr Postel's claim to
cyber-divinity, besides his appearance, is that he is the chairman--and in
effect the sole member--of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, the
organisation that co ordinates almost all Internet addresses. But unlike
God's, Mr Postel's influence over the Internet, though considerable, does
not stretch as far as omnipotence.


     At the moment he and his colleagues at the Internet Ad Hoc Committee,
or IAHC, have a dispute on their collective plate that goes to the heart of
the Internet. The problem is to do with its domain-name system (DNS). This
is the way that numerical addresses are translated into human-friendly
"domain names" (199.173.162.110, for example, becomes www.economist.com).


     At the heart of the DNS are ten computers known as root
domain-name-servers. These hold the translations between numerical
addresses and domain names, about which they supply information to less
important domain-name-servers. These, in turn, pass it on to the still less
important name-servers that most Net surfers use. Handing out the domain
names has been a monopoly--with good reason. By having a single authority,
the duplication of names (and thus chaos) is avoided. But monopoly brings a
risk of abuse, and the outfit which holds that monopoly--the InterNIC
division of Network Solutions, a company based in Herndon, Virginia--has
suffered that accusation from many users.


     Since it started charging for domain names in 1995, InterNIC has
become an object of derision on the Net. In 1996, it sent out bills for
$20m--far more than many think its services are worth. To get around this,
Mr Postel proposed creating several dozen new top-level domains (such as
.firm and .inc to accompany the familiar .com for businesses). These would
be controlled by new domain registries that would compete with each other
and with InterNIC.


     His plan has proved unpopular. The IAHC formally proposed a modified
version of it towards the end of 1996. It has received 4,000 sets of
comments on these proposals in less than three months, and many of them are
negative. Several organisations felt they might be compelled to register
themselves under new domain names as well as existing ones--if only to
avoid the activities of charlatans who might otherwise masquerade as them.
And .com addresses, which are steeped in Internet history, may remain more
attractive and prestigious than .firm.


     One possible remedy for this would be to treat domain names like
aircraft seats. Just as more than one travel agent sells places on the same
flight, many firms would be allowed to sell domain names that were stored
on the same database. If a name were registered by one firm, it could not
be used by another. This would bring the advantages of competition without
complicating the DNS.


     The IAHC, however, seems to have rejected this possibility. It
delivered its report on February 5th. The committee has chosen a
halfway-house solution: introducing seven new "shared" domains, including
.firm, .arts and .store. However, the prestigious .com domain will, at
least initially, be left under InterNIC's control.


     Unfortunately, some opportunists have already seen the dollar signs in
Mr Postel's
original suggestions and have set up their own top-level domains. Two such
firms are
Alternic, a company in Washington state, and New York-based Name.space. Both
organisations have, for example, intro duced .xxx and .sex domains.


     This sort of action could be troublesome. Unlike the more
decentralised parts of the Internet, the DNS needs to operate as a
hierarchy. Corrupt domain informa tion--like two computers both claiming to
be www.economist.com--would leave Net users unable to access many
resources.


     And there is a more subtle threat. Because neither Alternic nor
Name.space control a root domain-name-server, most users will be denied
access to these new top-level domains, thus losing one of the Net's main
points--its ubiquity.


     But perhaps the main lesson for the Internet is that it is time to
abandon amateurism. For all their expertise, neither Mr Postel nor most of
the members of the IAHC have the resources (nor, indeed, the mandate) to
dictate the Net's future course. Many are volunteers with full-time jobs.
This was fine when the Net was largely an academic tool. Now, though, it is
commercial. And commerce needs the service of professionals.


                        Copyright 1997 The Economist Newspaper Limited. All
Rights Reserved


------------------------------------------------------------------------------