root name servers

Sat Jul 29 18:01:30 UTC 1995

Two interesting side effects of many name spaces would would be that
a) people will perhaps run better (less leaky, more secure, ...) name
servers, it only so they won't interfere across name spaces, and b)
someone may sell services for pointers and directories of all the
available name spaces. As such, why stop at two root sets?

>On Sat, 29 Jul 1995, John A. Russo - Geonet Communications wrote:
>
>> This is an excellent idea Peter!
>> 
>> > How about trying to move some of the root name servers to the exchange
>> > points?
>
>> > For security and stability reasons (aswell as political) they should
>> > not be run by a single organisation.
>
>What about hijacking the root name servers? Here's the scenario.....
>
>A group of people who dislike the Internic's restrictive policies re the 
>namespace get together and set up new root domain servers that offer new 
>toplevel domains like .FAM, .INC, .KLINGON, .BIZ, .GOD, etc... They also 
>delegate the old domains to the existing root nameservers for .COM, .EDU, 
>etc. They offer the list of new root nameservers to anyone who wishes to 
>access the new expanded namespace. All a sysadmin needs to do is replace 
>the cache file used to prime named.
>
>They should also offer email forwarding so that people stuck with a 
>reactionary sysadmin can still email a new domain by using addresses of 
>the form person%one.true.god at reactionary.org
>
>Could people be plotting this even as we speak? Is it a good idea? Would 
>it solve the namespace problems we currently have?
>
>Michael Dillon                                    Voice: +1-604-546-8022
>Memra Software Inc.                                 Fax: +1-604-542-4130
>http://www.memra.com                             E-mail: michael at memra.com