RE: Re[2]: [ga] RE: Re[2]: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] response to respo nse to response)

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 8:44 PM

> Tuesday, May 29, 2001, 8:23:53 PM, erica roberts wrote:
> 
> > At the risk of stating the obvious ....
> > We seem to be in danger here of forgetting that the 
> Internet is global but
> > the constitution of the USA is not.   While the US 
> government is pretty
> > powerful, it is not a global or world government.  The rest 
> of the world is
> > not bound by the constitution of the USA or the laws of the USA.  An
> > international treaty would be required to make alternate 
> roots illegal in
> > the rest of the world.
> 
> Right, but let's face it.
> 
> A ban in the US would effectively kill most of them, not to mention
> any chance of them gaining significant ground.

It would not kill the largest one, the ORSC, in Toronto, Canada.
It might put a damper on Atlantic Root and Pacific Root, unless they had an
off-shore option. But, how are they going to stop all those zone servers,
behind all those firewalls? Recent NANOG discussions indicated what to use
for a internal TLD. Note that this  was NOT a discussion on whether or not
to run an internal zone server, but which TLD to run on it. This means that
they are building their own root zones already.

OOOooo, Maybe I should warn the NANOG folks that ICANN is going to make
their deviant zone servers illegal.
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html