> > They don't and can't stop you from using alternative root servers. The
fact
> > that there really aren't any feasable options is because of the
> > compatibility problems that would occur, not goverentment regulation,
IMO.
> >
> Compatability problems can be overcome, and I don't think they're any more
> serious than adding multilingual support, which, ummm... is being
introduced.
> Listing compatibility problems as a reason not to do it just doesn't stand
up
> as a valid argument. If we never changed anything because of compatibilty
> problems, we'd all be using Lynx.
It's all fine and good, except for two problems.
1) Every time someone creates a new namespace, they have to get it published
in some sort of list (The list used by these new root servers) and get their
newly created root servers out there to be used. OR, they have to approach
every ISP on the planet and get their server added, right?
2) Just wait until two people create duplicate namespaces. Lets say I make
.DAVE, and so does someone else. Who owns it? Who wins? That's where some
regulatory body comes in. Without it, everything starts to break down, it's
just a matter of time.
Or have I missed something?
