Turkey has switched Root-Servers

Wed Sep 28 04:09:12 UTC 2005

peter at peter-dambier.de (Peter Dambier) writes:

> Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> > I'm confused by the reasoning behind this public-root (alternate root)
> > problem... It seems to me (minus crazy-pills of course) that there is no
> > way for it to work, ever. So why keep trying to push it and break other
> > things along the way?
> 
> Paul Vixie has given very good arguments.

did i?  did you read them?  did you read the part where i said:

| ... thus there's plenty of money and power ready to back the next
| hair-brained scheme to break the lock, even if (as i expect) lack of
| naming universality would be worse than lack of naming autonomy.

if you can't see yourself in that picture, let me draw a clearer one:

i am not nec'ily an admirer of the US-DoC/ICANN/VeriSign trinity, but i
work to uphold it in spite of its flaws and my misgivings, simply because
of the end-game mechanics.  if any hair-brained alternate root schemes --
including yours, peter dambier! -- ever gets traction and starts to be a
force to be reckoned with, then THAT is when the gold rush will begin.
instead of a few whacko pirates like new.net and unidt, we'll be buried
in VC-funded "namespace plays".  every isp will have to decide whether to
start one, join one, or stay with the default.  most will decide to
outsource or consort, but the money plays and consortia will come and go
and fail and merge just like telco's and isp's do today.  the losers will
be my children, and everybody else who just wants to type a URL they saw
on a milk carton into their browser and have it work.

naming universality is not merely a convenience.  (nor an inconvenience!)

you don't get to be the last one if you succeed.  (nor if you fail!)

you, like all alternate namespace operators, are either a pirate or a fool.

do you still think that "Paul Vixie has given very good arguments?", peter?
-- 
Paul Vixie