Any good country administration of a cc should be available to explore
and or implement more reliable sources of inter connectivity.
Routing around IANA problems should be of paramount importance and security
considerations.
ICANN rooted situational remedies should be but one weapon in an arsenal
meant to provide a stable and usable internet and resource for any country.
Alternative methodology and inclusive allocations should also be a part
of a realistic global strategy for any country.
I am hardly waiting for someone to press the point that ICANN standards
are International standards within a WTO or USBTA agreement. I believe
the DoC will back off any such outlandish position and admit to a void
in ISO.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020607/wr_nm/tech_internet_safrica_dc_1
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 eric@hi-tek.com wrote:
> Dear YJ,
>
> Don't even sink to WXWs silly level. Why are they called "Country"
Codes.
>
> I know that people love to saintify Postel, but in fact he gave some
of the ccTLDs to the wrong
> folk.
> They were designed and will always remain to be Country Codes and
by and through that a Country
> Resource.
well - lets not get our nickers in a twist here.
now postel did not have the benefit of hindsight - not that hindsight
has
any significance here. all that happened was that postel needed
a means
of assigning countries identifiable namespace - he choose the iso
designation and he gave the assignments to the people who where there
and
were offering their services. they rightfully belong to these
people.
that is the nature of the dns. the za administrator may do as
he pleases.
now the fact the south african government are about to make fools of
themselves on the international telecommunications stage is the fault
of
the US dept of commerce who have kept these people ignorant of the
fact
that they can run their own zone infrastructure and not only take control
of their namespace but also increase their national security through
the
operation of a south african root server network.
the australian aboriginals secure their own zones - i see no reason
why
the south africans can't follow in the same path.
and we all know the security implications of relying on insecure root
infrastructure - don't we?
regards
joe baptista