DNS Naming Convention

[Kevin Darcy]

What about 'em? You're free to populate your hints file with any old 
junk you want to. For that matter, you're free to define your server 
with its own root zone and have it, and whatever clients depend on it, 
live in a little microcosm of your own making. The current set of root 
servers and/or TLD servers are used because, as a consensual matter, 
they work well the vast majority of the time, and people trust them.
Are you, by any chance, one of those people who is inherently 
distrustful of any kind of consensual agreement short of a 
(governmentally/legally) binding and (governmentally/legally) 
enforceable contract? Your questions about "ownership" and "control" 
lead me to believe you might be that kind of person. If so, then perhaps 
you ought to find a different line of work, because there's a lot more 
informality in the network technology realm than most attorneys and/or 
beancounters realize. See also (a little dated, admittedly): 
http://www.w3.org/Talks/1999/0105-Regulation/all.htm

                                                                         
                                    - Kevin

s wrote:

>What about those "alternative" or "inclusive space" domains?
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: <bmanning at karoshi.com>
>To: "Joseph S D Yao" <jsdy at center.osis.gov>
>Cc: <bmanning at karoshi.com>; <comp-protocols-dns-bind at isc.org>
>Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 3:06 PM
>Subject: Re: DNS Naming Convention
>
>
>  
>
>>>>Does it mean that the US institutions have a control over all other
>>>>        
>>>>
>country
>  
>
>>>>domains?
>>>>        
>>>>
>well, based on Paul Towmey's (ICANN CEO) presentation to the
>GAC plenary at the ICANN mtg today, -every- change to the root
>zone, for -every- TLD needed to get US DoC approval.
>
>that said, you are likely correct.
>
>--bill
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>