Re: Statements against new.net?

["Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () opaltelecom co uk>]

> and otherwise -- I (or the author) shouldn't have to go into. If each
> root zone is unique (and they would have to be, else they would be
> coordinated and therefore not "multiple root zones"), there is nothing
> to stop one root zone from adding a {TLD,SLD} which already exists in
> another.

Agree, but who will decide who owns which unique block, if new.net is
permitted to make money from selling .shop or whatever then I want a piece
of that, why should they own it and not me?

> Where do I point my client cache to get said glue?) No matter how much
> you want to distribute elements of the root zone, if conflicts must be
> avoided (as they must in this case) then there has to be a final word
> from somewhere to eliminate them.

Precisely the reason why new.net should not do this off their own back and
without the "okay" from some global central body - regardless of whether
you personally agree or not with who that body is.

> > This is a matter of mathematics, not politics.  How to get root glue to all
> > clients that need it is a technical topic.  Who should be the distributor of
> > that glue is a political topic.  This is the crux of the matter.
>
> So, since 2826 never states who should be the distributor, it's not
> engaging the political topic in question...

Well it avoids the issue, but I think we already have a distributor, we
can change who that is but we shouldnt add another, there should be only
one.. 

Steve