[discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA

nathalie coupet nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 4 01:45:54 UTC 2014

Could you, jefsey, Hebe, and others, please address the issue of leakage. How could you prevent it (do you want to prevent it)?

 From: James Seng <james.seng at gmail.com>
To: David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> 
Cc: "discuss at 1net.org List" <discuss at 1net.org> 
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2014 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: [discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA

If we can separate the debate on control over namespace vs the actual operation of the root server (or its anycast consetallation), we can divide the political problem of the root servers by half :-)

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:28 AM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:

On Mar 3, 2014, at 7:10 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I was just trying sight past comments/thread about having multiple alternate root servers (to perhaps break the "perceived" ICANN monopoly (which i agree does not make sense either :) )
>I understand, however just for clarity (and somewhat orthogonal to this thread), there is nothing wrong with having multiple root servers or server systems.  What matters is the namespace, that is the universe of all possible names. How that namespace is implemented, whether it is on the "traditional" name servers or ORSN or via ISP's resolvers  mirroring the root zone or my copying the root zone and installing it on my laptop, is irrelevant (particularly given DNSSEC).  Where things break down is when people want _different_ namespaces at the same time they expect those namespaces to interoperate and not leak.
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org


-James Seng

discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140303/54196597/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list