RE: Statements against new.net?

["Mike Batchelor" <mikebat () tmcs net>]

> It's hardly a stretch to figure out. Multiple root zones (in the true
> sense, not the pretend sense you suggest below) will arguably yield
> conflicting information over time, for reasons -- social, capitalistic,
> and otherwise -- I (or the author) shouldn't have to go into. If each
> 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.

> This is what I'm referring to above about pretend multiple root zones.
> Even if you put different pieces of the root zone on different servers,
> operated by different entities, the only way to ensure there are not
> conflicts is by coordinating the information contained in each. And if
> you're doing that, it's still a singular root zone, just distributed.
> And even if the coordination is done by those different people who
> operate their different servers in different organizations, those people
> make up a "unique naming authority". Who/where/what is the "trusted"
> source of the glue? (And not in a political sense, in a technical sense.
> 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.

> 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.

> -c