Statements against new.net?

Wed Mar 14 03:35:22 UTC 2001

At 04:14 PM 3/13/2001 -0800, Mike Batchelor wrote:
> >    That one root must be supported by a set
>                   ^zone
> >    of coordinated root servers administered by a unique naming
> >    authority.
>Here is where I disagree.
...
>I still say it's a self-serving statement with political motivations, and I
>hope I have adequately explained why I think that.

One could argue that "single naming authority" does not necessarily imply 
that a single body is making the decisions of what is or is not in the root 
zone.  The use of a single body is (arguably) the _easiest_ solution to the 
root zone edit control problem, not necessarily the best 
solution.  Clearly, a model in which multiple cooperative bodies manage the 
editing of the root zone is workable -- there are several empirical proofs 
of such.  However, it can be argued that in such a model, the cooperative 
is the "unique naming authority".

The issue isn't really about this however.  New.Net is not a part of a 
cooperative.  They are a commercial company deciding on their own what is 
or is not a good top level domain -- they are asserting (with the help of 
@Home, Earthlink, mp3.com, etc.) that they are the unique naming 
authority.  I, for one, do not believe that this is appropriate or desirable.

Rgds,
-drc