Re: [wg-review] dndef, 9

["Miles B. Whitener" <mbw@i-theta.com>]

I would be very suspicious of any definition of a domain apart
from what a DNS zone is.

If some naming or directory service other than DNS becomes
popular enough, it won't have to be related to the current DNS at
all.  "COM" in such a service, if such a name existed at all,
would not be the same as the DNS "COM".

Here's a little thesis on DNS domains, for comment:

The big question about DNS management is "who owns the DNS root
domain".  The second biggest question is "to what extent can the
owner of a DNS domain restrict usage of subdomains".

The answer to the first question is "the owners of the Internet
hardware, software, rights of way, and spectrum allocations, in
proportion".

The answer to the second question is, mostly, "to the extent that
individual agreements dictate".

> My point is that I am unsure whether or not we are being
foolish in
> trying to define Domain.  I believe the Japanese term I am
referring to
> is "Mu".
...
> Domain Names are only definable in the immediate context of the
contract
> in which they are referred.  Parties are free to define Domain
as they
> see fit for contractual purposes. For the purposes of contracts
dealing
> with ICANN or any part thereof, the definitions of Domain are
those
> definitions contained therein.



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