Thus spake "Einar Stefferud" <Stef(_at_)thor(_dot_)nma(_dot_)com>
So, it should be no surprise that all Internet users do have a
choice, in that their choice of root service provider is lodged in
the root service IP address that they, in their free individual
wisdom, choose to put in their own password controlled "root server
entry field" in their own computer's TCP/IP tables.
...
In fact, if you look around the Internet, you will see that every
Intra-Lan and Extra-Lan has its own private root servers with
subsets of the total set of available TLDs.
Very few corporations (and no ISPs, AFAIK) run their own roots. Those that do
usually simply replicate the ICANN root for availability purposes. Even if
there were a proliferation of root servers, that wouldn't help end users since
end users need recursive servers (which roots can't be by definition).
I'm hardly a DNS expert, but I am not going to point *my* servers at a root run
by people who can't even use the terminology properly.
That some uninformed users believe that the ICANN root is the only
root, is a myth propagated by those who are interested in denying
access to the rest of the net to those users who are ill informed.
If by "some" you mean "all but about fifty kooks", sure. I'm willing to bet
over 95% of Internet users can't even tell you what the IETF or ICANN *do*, much
less any reason they should be unsatisfied with them.
That ORSC does not have the marketing resources to overcome this
ignorance may or may not be unfortunate, but this fact does not
change the fact that the ORSC root service exists and is used without
causing any problems for those who are unaware of it, as many on this
list seem to be unaware.
If your alternate existence does not cause problems, it's only because nobody
uses your service.
So, in spite of the ICANN Mission to avoid conflicts among TLD names
in the Internet DNS root system, ICANN is the only party that has
deliberately chosen to knowingly create a conflict in the aggregated
collective root.
...
This, in our ORSC view, violates all aspects of the
concept of mutual coordination and conflict avoidance.
ICANN's job is to provide the single authoritative root; this root has no
conflicts, and it is therefore not subject to mutual coordination or conflict
avoidance. You're arguing a moot point.
So who do you suspect does the better job?
In life, the best technical solution does not always win. It's entirely
possible that ORSC may be more reliable, more user-friendly, more democratic,
and more cost-effective -- that's irrelevant. Whoever controls
A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET is the root.
S