|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: "Mike Batchelor" <mikebat@tmcs.net> To: "Havard Eidnes" <he@nordu.net> Cc: <nanog@merit.edu> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:44:12 -0800 Message-ID: <LLEOLJEDPHOFANPCPKOMKEBBCCAA.mikebat@tmcs.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20010314114217E.he@runit.no> Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu > > Oh come on, we're not idiots here, what other root could it > > possibly be referring to? You're being intentionally dense. > > Well, obviously I disagree. It is my firm opinion that the people > politically opposed to the ICANN/USG/pick-your-DNS-political-enemy > are reading way too much between the lines in this document. > > I stand by my claim that the document is first and foremost > technical in nature, and I wish those people claiming otherwise > would actually go back and read the document and cite chapter and > verse. 2826 does not exist in a vacuum. You have to decide what it means in the context of the Internet as it exists today. ICANN and its supporters are interpreting it to mean one root to rule them all - the ICANN root. Why else would Esther Dyson suggest - perhaps in jest, perhaps not - that TLDs outside of the ICANN root should be made illegal? 2826 was intended to be technical in nature, but circumstances have changed since then. > > Regards, > > - Håvard >
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |