Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 01:02:55 +0000 (GMT) From: William Palfreman <william@palfreman.com> To: Barney Wolff <barney@pit.databus.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 4.7-R-p3: j.root-servers.net Message-ID: <20030127004815.Y10725@aqua.lan.palfreman.com> In-Reply-To: <20030126230257.GA62541@pit.databus.com> References: <20030126130837.GA399@gicco.homeip.net> <20030126224956.K27492-100000@voo.doo.net> <20030126230257.GA62541@pit.databus.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Barney Wolff wrote: > And of course, using the "alternate" roots is evil. Why is that then? I'm slaving the OpenNIC ones here without any trouble. DNS just being an information service in the end I can't see why there has to be the only one of its type. In fact, how can it be a standard if there is only one implementation? :-) I can think of some very good reasons *to* have multiple roots, for one allowing new TLD domains to evolve spontaneously, and secondly to prevent TLD and subdomains from coming under control of oppressive governments and quasi-government agencies like ICANN. AFAIK .za had to move to the UK a while back precisely to avoid takeover by the South African government, but even so, one fixed root is bound to lead to increasing political control in the end. So what is the great theoretical objection to multiple roots then? -- W. Palfreman. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030127004815.Y10725>