Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 9:09 AM
Subject: "here's the real issue: there are many companies and political movements who...think"...
> "here's the real issue: there are many companies and political movements who...think"
>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg21491.html
> From: Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 03:56:19 +0000
> "here's the real issue: there are many companies and political movements who
> think that iana's namespace is not the only namespace. new.net, for
> example. iab takes a very strong "single unique namespace" view, and as
> such, the i* organizations (iesg in this case) will probably (and ought to,
> in my view) take a very dim view of any attempt to standardize a uri that
> permits a "multiple namespace" fiction to be operable."
> ====
Paul, this is complete and utter nonsense.
The *REAL* issue is access the IANA/DoC/ICANN root. If access that single "Precious" root is open (to allow competition per the original requirements which drove Draft Postel / IAHC / gTLD-MoU / White Paper / New Corp / DoC / ICANN), then every single alt.root becomes irrelevant.
The alt.roots are a solution to a problem that the i* organizations refuse to solve. Most of the inhabitants of the alt.roots are there because i* has put them there by refusing their requests for inclusion in the single "Precious" root.
As a result, we've discovered that it is possible for there to be more than one root and the genie is out of the bottle. The alt.roots could be "cat herded" back into a single root if i* wanted this to happen. The drafts have been published and rejected.
The conclusion we have to draw from this is that i*'s actions encourage the creation of multiple roots and that it has made it very clear that i* ants total control over it's own root at the expense of the Internet communities wishes for name space expansion.
Best Regards,
Simon Higgs
--
The Blog: http://www.simonhiggs.com/
###
