Despite the stated technical merits of a single root, I think one needs to reflect on the implications that a few of the world's largest ISPs appear to have made a business decision to use a superset of the ICANN/US Department of Commerce's root zone. It's claimed that the US had about 100 million Internet users in December 2000. According to New.net's numbers (which needs to be confirmed), about 16% of those can now use their alternative root. If this percentage continues to grow, ICANN's ability to control what goes into the DNS would seem to be constrained. Robert -- Robert Shaw <robert.shaw@itu.int> ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor International Telecommunication Union <http://www.itu.int> Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland
Despite the stated technical merits of a single root, I think one needs to reflect on the implications that a few of the world's largest ISPs appear to have made a business decision to use a superset of the ICANN/US Department of Commerce's root zone. Which big ones? I've never seen any official message about this. It's claimed that the US had about 100 million Internet users in December 2000. According to New.net's numbers (which needs to be confirmed), about 16% of those can now use their alternative root. I've seen various claims by various alternative root operators. None have been confirmed by independent research as far as I know. jaap
a few of the world's largest ISPs appear to have made a business decision to use a superset of the ICANN/US Department of Commerce's root zone.
Which big ones? I've never seen any official message about this.
the only folk who say this are in the marketing department of the new.dns fools and a few misguided and/or misinformed net.politicians.
I've seen various claims by various alternative root operators. None have been confirmed by independent research as far as I know.
folk who think this nonsense is viable are doomed to relive history. the same rogue namespace silliness was tried in fidonet and failed a decade ago. randy
In your previous mail you wrote: Despite the stated technical merits of a single root, => the merits are not only technical, the Internet simply doesn't work with an incoherent root zone. I think one needs to reflect on the implications that a few of the world's largest ISPs appear to have made => the I for these ISPs no more stands for Internet. a business decision to use a superset of the ICANN/US Department of Commerce's root zone. => the survival of the Internet should not be a tool in a battle against ICANN/US DoC... It's claimed that the US had about 100 million Internet users in December 2000. According to New.net's numbers (which needs to be confirmed), about 16% of those can now use their alternative root. => I don't believe these numbers. New.net is a player in this silly game and is biased. If this percentage continues to grow, ICANN's ability to control what goes into the DNS would seem to be constrained. => as a French-speaker I have still troubles with the word control (French meaning is subtlely different)... So what is control in your statement? International Telecommunication Union <http://www.itu.int> => what about a parallel phone numbering system? (:-) Regards Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr PS: about the deep question: there is not enough free time to enter in these silly games.
participants (4)
-
Francis Dupont -
Jaap Akkerhuis -
Randy Bush -
Shaw, Robert