RE: [ga-roots] Community Roots or Red Herrings)

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of Roeland Meyer
|> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 4:56 PM
|> To: ga-roots@dnso.org
|> Subject: RE: [ga-roots] Community Roots or Red Herrings)
|>
|> Not actually true, Root-zone, plus TLD zones, plus 3ld zones, plus ...
plus
|> hosts.txt files (Yes, I use those as well, as backup for when DNS has a
|> hissy-fit).

And in the vast majority of cases based around the legacy root zone and the
parameters acceptable to it.  We can get bogged down in semantics if you
wish.

|> You know Dassa, you are the last one I would expect to be using purposly
|> inflammatory language. The term I am refering to is "rogue". It implies
that
|> someone is doing something illegal. Show me one law, anywhere, that
makes
|> running a root-zone illegal.

From http://nhd.heinle.com/nhd-bin/searchNHD.pl
rogue  n. adj. 1 a wild, lone animal, such as an elephant: <adj.> Rogue
elephants can go crazy and cause a lot of damage. 2 an evil, often
dangerous man: He is a <n.> rogue who fights and cheats people. 3 a person
who enjoys tricks and teasing: Her little son is such a <n.> rogue! -n. [U]
roguery.

and From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :

  Rogue \Rogue\, v. t.
     1. To give the name or designation of rogue to; to decry.
        [Obs.] --Cudworth.

In no definition do I find the term rogue to specifically refer to anything
illegal although it may be used in conjunction with other terms to
reinforce the impression of illegality.  In the instances I have used the
term it was not to convey any legal connotations.  Nor is it used in a
purposely inflammatory manner.  However, the term conveys a greater and
more accurate description than do the use of terms such as "alternative",
"competitive" or "inclusive".  I use the term to convey the impression they
are root zones at odds with the established legacy root zone and as such it
is descriptive.  If you like, consider it in the context of the definition
above "Her little son is a <n> rogue!".


|> If we are going to be constructive on this list, we need to stick to
facts
|> and stay away from inflammatory characterizations. If you want to
reference
|> actual breaches of law, then cite the actual laws that are violated.

I have never stated any laws have been breached although it may be possible
to do so.  It is not one of the arguments I have been putting forward.  The
law is currently so far behind as to not be practical for inclusion in this
discussion IMHO.

|> BTW, there is at least one scenario where one HAS to run their own root
zone
|> servers, for sound technical reasons. Many ISPs hit this scenario and
run a
|> clone of the DOC root zone. Are they rogue? I think not.

Again, note the use of the term clone.  That is different to running a root
zone that is at odds with the legacy root zone.

What is hoped to be gained from this discussion?  Are we trying to define
what exactly the terminology should be in describing all the root zones?
We don't seem to be getting very far.  It may be more productive to explore
other aspects of the discussion and revisit this issue at another stage.

Perhaps we should be discussing if ICANN needs to adopt a policy to deal
with other root zones?  If so, what that policy should be.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html