From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Jan 30 1: 4:43 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A751437B405 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 01:04:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from 12-234-22-23.client.attbi.com (12-234-22-23.client.attbi.com [12.234.22.23]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 999D143E4A for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 01:04:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from DougB@FreeBSD.org) Received: from slave.gorean.org (uwstyoldexj55vg8@slave.gorean.org [10.0.0.1]) by 12-234-22-23.client.attbi.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0U94dfS001496; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 01:04:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from DougB@FreeBSD.org) Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 01:04:39 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Barton To: William Palfreman Cc: Fred Clift , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: 4.7-R-p3: j.root-servers.net In-Reply-To: <20030130022654.C31399@aqua.lan.palfreman.com> Message-ID: <20030130010126.Y341@12-234-22-23.pyvrag.nggov.pbz> References: <20030129163652.J22139-100000@vespa.dmz.orem.verio.net> <20030130022654.C31399@aqua.lan.palfreman.com> Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, William Palfreman wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Fred Clift wrote: > > > On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, William Palfreman wrote: > > > > > mainstream root occur all the time - abusive behaviour by some > > > government wannabees, abusive interference by courts in domain name > > > ownership, ICANN, DDoS attacks, simple volume of traffic problems and > > > > > > Are you saying that there is some other way than courts (or violence) to > > ultimately resolve things that exist only in terms of law? ie > > 'ownership'? > > Yes, of course. Agreement and mutual respect. Domains name certainly > do not exist only in terms of law. They exist in the zonefile of the > authoritative nameserver. Ultimately that is where any disputes are > settled. Things like that don't really have anything to do with courts, > less so once there are several roots (and overlapping TLDs), because a > court simply cannot impose itself without the voluntary agreement the > admin for the nameserver in question - which is as it should be. > > > Since the concept of ownership is basically just a legal definition, then > > legal means will be (leaving out violence) the ultimate means of resolving > > issues surrounding it. > > Legal means are not leaving out violence. They are violent. If someone > lives in a country where a court decision goes against them, no matter > how illegitimate that court decision, if they do not go along with it > they can be fined ad imprisoned - and if they don't accept either > police will come and arrest you, shooting if you resist. Courts are the > very epitome of violence. I'm re-posting your whole message (something I don't usually do) because you rather neatly made my point, and contradicted your first statement. It is ENTIRELY possible that the courts (not the name server admins) will have the final say in regards to domain name disputes, since they have the ability to compel obedience to their edicts. Like it or not, domain names are part of business, and business and law are tightly intertwined. Doug -- If it's moving, encrypt it. If it's not moving, encrypt it till it moves, then encrypt it some more. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message