Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Statements against

  • From: Clayton Fiske
  • Date: Wed Mar 14 14:39:07 2001

On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 10:02:33AM -0800, Mike Batchelor wrote:
> > root zone is unique (and they would have to be, else they would be
> > coordinated and therefore not "multiple root zones"), there is nothing
> > to stop one root zone from adding a {TLD,SLD} which already exists in
> > another.
> There's a strong incentive not to do that.  It diminishes the value of both
> versions of that TLD. To do so would be to shoot yourself and the other guy
> in the foot.  Darwinism in action.

Not if you don't offer your own foot to shoot. Domain squatters have
partially taught us this. All it takes is for someone to have a beef
with someone else. The most obvious example is .xxx. It would seem to
me that it would just be a matter of time before some organization
decided to create their own .xxx simply for the purpose of disrupting
the 'main' one.

> > Where do I point my client cache to get said glue?) No matter how much
> > you want to distribute elements of the root zone, if conflicts must be
> > avoided (as they must in this case) then there has to be a final word
> > from somewhere to eliminate them.
> I think people should not use colliders, until the colliding parties work it
> out.  This is Pacificroot's philosophy, and ORSC's as well.  You could also
> delegate the responsibilty to make these judgement calls to your preferred
> root operator, or you can make the call yourself and build your own root
> zone.  People will gravitate towards root operators with a track record of
> reliable service.

In the above example, this would likely not solve the problem. There
would be no reason for either side to back down, and each side would
want to choose the root operator they felt was most likely to decide
in their favor.

> > So, since 2826 never states who should be the distributor, it's not
> > engaging the political topic in question...
> Except that the one-root-to-rule-them-all crowd - ICANN boosters - cite 2826
> to support their position. It is political because it is being used by both
> sides in a political debate.

The fact that there is a political debate surrounding it does not make
the document itself political. Whether the timing of its release, the
position of the author, etc are political in nature or not, the document
in and of itself stands as a technical one.


Discussion Communities

About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home

Merit Network, Inc.