I think the problem with all of this will occur when another company
registers a new TLD with ICANN which is already a TLD in the alternate root.
Then, people who are pointing to the alternate root will not be able to see
that TLD. There will be namespace overlap. As far as I can see it, there
will be no recourse for the alternate root because they will not be able to
show damages. ICANN won't be interfering with their business because the
alternate root's customers will still be able to see the alternate TLDs. It
will simply be a matter of choice, as it currently is. Right now, the choice
is simple. Point to the official root and get the official TLDs or point to
the alternate root and get the official TLDs + the alternate TLDs. But when
namespace overlap happens, it won't be as simple. Point to the alternate and
lose some of the official... hmmm... which way to go... I am very interested
to see the outcome of this. Maybe two competing official roots? I can see it
now: "Which Internet are you on?"... so much for International standards and
homogeneity.
btw, I think ICANN should be absorbed by ISO or something, get it away from
the US. My opinion is that the only reason people hate ICANN is because it
was founded by the US Government. If it were run by an International
standards group, then maybe we could all get along?
-Eric
-------------------------------------------------------
arctic bears - the internet - your way.
50000 domain names were reserved today. was yours?
domains from US$25/year, name resolution, mail hosting.
http://www.arcticbears.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "adam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Can you see GOD? (fwd)
> Dave Warren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Yes actually. I run my own name servers, and if I choose to, I can
switch
> > root servers to another set that would offer different (Or even
conflicting)
> > TLDs. I would never have to know/care about ICANN or NetSol again.
> >
> True.
>
> > You simply don't have a choice because it's all but written in stone
that
> > you have to use the commonly accepted root servers if you want to see
the
> > internet as we see it today.
> >
> I have my doubts about that. Joe Baptista is eminently more qualified to
> address this than me, but unless I'm very much mistaken, the alternative
root
> servers simply reproduce the "proper" roots, adding in their own TLD's.
> The "proper" TLD's are not affected. The Internet looks the exact same.
> Except you can view the other TLD's too of course... :)
>
> > But it is your choice, you can either contact your ISP and ask them to
> > change root servers (Yeah, right!)
> >
> I wouldn't be so quick to suggest that it's unlikely to happen. I know
> several sysadmins of fairly large ISP's who are seriously considering
making
> the change. Alternative hostnames are getting into the system - people are
> posting on mailing lists with email addresses using alternative tld's. I
> think at this stage it's a matter of "when" rather than "if".
>
> As a matter of fact, now I come to think about it, when Joe posted the
first
> message in this thread, I looked and could see .god. And I use the root
> servers installed by the script on my ISP's CD...
>
> > or set up your own name servers and use whatever roots you like.
> >
> I have. I am.
>
> > 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.
>
> adam
>
>
