> However, it still is not necessarily true. Some time back in this
> thread I pointed out that Internet routing has in effect thousands of
> independent roots, the autonomous systems (ASs) which in combination
> are the Internet. Each AS has its own separate routing policy, each
> decides independently which routers to announce and how to announce
> them.
That is a very good example of how enlightened self interest on the part
of ISP's creates a working, stable internet. It is possible for the
ISPs to create chaos, but they don't. And they don't because their
customers would run away if they did.
That same kind of enlightened self interest would cause multiple root
system operators to make choices that lead to stability and
interoperability rather than choices that lead to partitions and
inconsistencies.
Whether one agrees with the concept of multiple root systems being
self-stablizing or not, one does have to recognize that ICANN or the DNSO
can't do a thing to prevent them from arising other than to spread FUD
(Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.)
For example, I added IOD's .web to my inventory of TLDs last evening (it
took me all of 120 seconds to do on my first server and about 60 seconds
for each of my other servers.) It works just fine. ICANN couldn't say
no, the DNSO couldn't say no. And I still have interoperability with the
net. And I don't have to agree to follow any ADR rules or WIPO rules.
In many respects this whole domain name governance system that is being
built is like Wylie Coyote in the cartoons -- he runs off of a cliff and
he will hang in the air - unsupported by anything except his lack of
knowlege about his situation - until he looks down and falls. Similarly,
all this ICANN and DNSO stuff is being built on an assumption of control
that is simply not at all permanent and that can disappear in a flash.
--karl--
