If they haven't, they will. Much easier to be under ICANN than under
your government. See ccTLDs.
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, at 19:56 [=GMT-0400], Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> i don't think the routing registries have signed contracts with ICANN yet
>
> >On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, at 17:58 [=GMT-0400], Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> >
> >> >> We need to find our own solution to the new TLD problem, and the
> >> >> cooperative maintenance of the Virtual Inclusive Root.
> >> >
> >> >Burying your head in the sand and wishing the problem away won't make it
> >> >so.
> >> >
> >> >Ignore ICANN to your own detriment.
> >>
> >> Perhaps, but saying "these ISO protocols suck and should not be used"
> >> was not effective. Making TCP/IP work, was.
> >
> >So what is the latest that I missed? Freenet? Where do I get an IP
> >number from a non-ICANN authority? One that works?
> >
> >I am all for alternatives, especially working ones, and I do try to
> >participate in those. But can we really _ignore_ ICANN completely?
>
>
> --
> ****************************************************************
> The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
> (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Index to 9 years
> of the COOK Report at http://cookreport.com From now
> through Sept 15th
> half price sale on university library site license and access to ALL
> back issues.
> Site license $575 and all back issues $300. http://cookreport.com/sale.shtml
> ****************************************************************
>
