RE: Re: [ga] RE: Re: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] r esponse to respo nse to response)
> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 10:57 PM
> To compare internal TLDs that are not made resolvable by others to
> alt.roots is disingenuous, Roeland, and absolutely not relevant to the
> current discussion.
Others being large multi-national corps and their business partners. This
makes the playing field somewhat tilted. What's the differernce between
internal root zones and external ones when the entity uses only the internal
ones, for both internal and external resolution?
> ORSC would be effectively, dead, btw, Roeland. When US ISPs are not
> permitted to resolve names using alternative root systems, it would be
> near impossible for any alternative root to reach anything reasonable
> in visibility.
US ISPs continue to use their own internal systems. I won't bet on the
results if someone were to try and tell them that they can't. One recent
NANOG resident snorted down on one ISP that apparently wasn't running their
own zone servers. Can we say "point of pride"? Politically, I don't see how
it can float. Besides, it doesn't scale. Such a law would be as enforcible
as the 55 mph speed limit. Maybe, less so. Can you imagine the scanning that
would have to go on?
> Further, last time I checked, the ORSC was a Delaware Corporation.
> Tuesday, May 29, 2001, 10:46:05 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> >> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 8:44 PM
> >> Tuesday, May 29, 2001, 8:23:53 PM, erica roberts wrote:
> >> > At the risk of stating the obvious ....
> >> > We seem to be in danger here of forgetting that the
> >> Internet is global but
> >> > the constitution of the USA is not. While the US
> >> government is pretty
> >> > powerful, it is not a global or world government. The rest
> >> of the world is
> >> > not bound by the constitution of the USA or the laws of
> the USA. An
> >> > international treaty would be required to make alternate
> >> roots illegal in
> >> > the rest of the world.
> >> Right, but let's face it.
> >> A ban in the US would effectively kill most of them, not to mention
> >> any chance of them gaining significant ground.
> > It would not kill the largest one, the ORSC, in Toronto, Canada.
> > It might put a damper on Atlantic Root and Pacific Root,
> unless they had an
> > off-shore option. But, how are they going to stop all those
> zone servers,
> > behind all those firewalls? Recent NANOG discussions
> indicated what to use
> > for a internal TLD. Note that this was NOT a discussion on
> whether or not
> > to run an internal zone server, but which TLD to run on it.
> This means that
> > they are building their own root zones already.
> > OOOooo, Maybe I should warn the NANOG folks that ICANN is
> going to make
> > their deviant zone servers illegal.
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh
> Owner, Userfriendly.com
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html