Re: [wg-c] reposted for Harald Tveit Alvestrand

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

(I'd suggest that right now we might all be thinking that fraudulant
e-mail is perhaps a more significant source of net instability than
competing DNS roots.  The current e-mail chaos does point out that if
there is a weakness in the Internet, somebody will eventually abuse it.
Thus, if multiple roots are, in fact, a source of potential disruption
[something I don't agree that they are, but there are many who feel the
contrary] then we ought to be concerned that such a weakness is
technically corrected rather than simply closing our eyes and hoping it
doesn't happen.)

Anyway....

> There is no need to fragment the internet.  Multiple roots
> can and should exist, but must be coordinated.

If competitive root systems needed coordination, then we'd need ICANN.

But the fact of the matter is coordination is neither necessary nor
desirable, whether measured by a technical, economic, or political
yardstick.

Competing roots can be operated as the word "competing" fully implies -
with total disregard (within the limits of law) for the health and
survival of ones competitors.

It's really nobody's business but my own whether I take my name resolution
business to Uncle Ho's name resolution service or to some ICANN
franchisee.

I hardly need an Internet Government to regulate the quality of the
service.  If I get crummy service from Uncle Ho, then I can switch.

Those root system operators who want to share can share.  Those who want
to "coordinate" can be "coordinated".  But competitive roots don't require
any of that, whether in a technical or administrative sense.

Absent somebody enacting a worldwide law (and enforcing it) there's
nothing that can stop the creation, deployment, and use of distinct and
uncoordinated root systems.

		--karl--