Re: [ga] Names Policy Development Process

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

At 05:42 29/07/02, todd glassey wrote:

>My feeling is that a Root Zone Protocol as a top layer of a DNS resolution
>model might be also functional. The idea would be that if there was a Root
>Zone specified in the URI/URL then it would be used otherwise the default
>set would be (i.e. the ICANN set).

There is a root zone indicated in the URI: this is the TLD. Roots are the 
registered name of a sub-namespace into the global namespace and in the 
orther sub-namespaces. In Internet words this translates to ".arpa" (for 
the arpa-sub namespace) and in "." (for the global namespace).

As per constant practice (recalled in RFC 920) the TLD (sub-namespaces) may 
originate from one sub-namespace which administers it (as its referent 
gTLDs, sTLDs), or from another sub-namespace or from the global namespace, 
you then only register it (ccTLDs, moTLDs).

 From the very begining (1977) the ITU has been the place were the root 
names and TLD names got their legimacy from, through the respect of the 
International rules by FCC and by soverign states, and through X.121, E.164 
standards. The special case from the Internet comes from the size taken by 
the its brainware development (people think they use it all over the place) 
and from its lack of support of X.121 and E.164 until now. Things would 
have been quite easier to understand and manage otherwise.

So called "alternate roots" are only an extension of the ".arpa" root as 
far as I read them, except China. China is legitimately taking advantage 
from its national root. Leah ".biz" is claiming legitimacy from ".arpa" in 
comparing to the ".com" extended use.
jfc