Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!ucbvax!TMC.EDU!sob
From: sob@TMC.EDU (Stan Barber)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
Subject: Re: Politics of domain naming styles
Message-ID: <9007080452.AA02079@tmc.edu>
Date: 8 Jul 90 04:52:39 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 21

The NIC distributes authority for the top level domains in a well documented
manner. If you are unfamiliar with it, we can discuss it off line. However,
once you get into an organizational framework, things get murky to the user on
the outside who observes that there is a problem. If the central authority
(the NIC designate for that domain) keeps the authoratative database for that
whole domain, there is only one group the user has to go to for a fix. The
more distributed the thing gets the harder it is to get it fixed particularly
if the authority does not have the organizational mechanism to get it fixed.
This is really what I am pointing out. I have no problem with appropriate
distribution of the DNS (both the domain name part or the in-addr.arpa part).
However, in some instances I am aware of, the distribution of the DNS has only
caused headaches for outside users (and their postmasters! :-). 

I am also aware of cases where some level of distibution would solve some
problems as well.

I am also aware of political realities and those power mongers out there, but
I don't think having a responsible central authority as I have described is
an indication of this. An irresponsible or unresponsive one is.

STAN