RE: Re[4]: [wg-c] Recap from past threads...

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

As I said, there is MUCH work to do before multi-part roots are viable,
technically. I mentioned it as an example. As far as alternative roots
are concerned, I don't think we differ much there either. Only in where
we place the threshold. Also the fact that I don't believe in bluffing
or making threats (one and the same). If I create a root-registry, it'll
be for real intent to operate, not as a political ploy, or I wont
bother. Yes, I am seriously considering the option, with DNSO.NET.

> > Did I also mention that I am a touch on the paranoid side?
> I don't trust
> > centralized control either. Multiple registries are good,
> in this light,
> > as is a multi-part root. I'd also like to see multiple root-zone
> > registries, each with their own family of TLD registries.
> But, that's a
> > bit much for now. A lot more technical work needs doing for
> that to be
> > viable.
>
> But here is where we part the ways.  I see an alternative root server
> network as a means for the Internet Community to route around ICANN
> should it adopt policies that are widely considered to be in
> appropriate.  ISPs that I communicate with are open to this, but are
> taking a wait and see position, giving ICANN the benefit of the doubt
> and a chance to do the right thing.
>
> I still hold out hope that this is possible.  I see an alternative
> root system as something that we should avoid unless it turns out to
> be needed to route around the damage, and even then be used as a means
> of applying pressure (political and economic) to bring about change.