On 3/28/16 9:08 PM, George Michaelson wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]> > wrote: >> That's in effect an argument that the special-names registrations are not >> special. I >> do not agree with that claim. > >>From an extreme point of view (which clearly, contextually, I hold) > thats exactly what I think I fundamentally agree with, in what Alain > is saying: The special-names are claiming technological override on > process which ignores the central unity of all name-strings:
It doesn't ignore it, it assumes the unity of namespace. otherwise what would be the point? you'd just go off and do your own thing... > for > ICANN, for the namespace, these are labels like all the others. indeed. > They're asking for a joker-card permit, which I have major issues > with. That aside, they're just like all the others. The qualities they > have in the zone, the records which do or do not exist are in another > plane, orthoginal. > > -G > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
