RE: [ga] root vs roots - the false but usefull confusion

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

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: owner-ga-full@dnso.org On Behalf Of Jefsey Morfin
|> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 9:15 PM
|> To: ga@dnso.org
|> Subject: [ga] root vs roots - the false but usefull confusion

<snip>
|> It is not the root of the iCANN: the iCANN has deliberately
|> chosen to have its mini-root (authoritative on its TLDs] being only a
part of
|> the full and unique root.
|>
As ICANN has the major share of the name space the above is a little
misleading.

There has been a bit of discussion on ICANN using US law to control other
roots, mainly in the form of making it illegal for ISP's in the US to use
them.  This has been touted as not being possible.

Has anyone given any thought to other legal means ICANN has at its
disposal?  I would think that ICANN would be able to swing contractual
arrangements to control access to the legacy root.  Whereby anyone who uses
the legacy root is under a contractual obligation to acknowledge it as the
authoritive unique root and to not use the legacy root simultaneously with
another root.  They could also knobble the other roots use of the legacy
root in the same manner.  Unless there is a contact authorising access to
the legacy root, access is unauthorised and illegal.

ISP's would be free to use any root they choose, but to use the legacy root
they would be obligated to only use it.

To me, this would allow ICANN to give the legacy root the authority that
people are saying it lacks.

Just a late night thought.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
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