> 3.  What RSC is run by a single individual?  None to my knowledge?

Considering by definition, that a Confederation precludes being a single 
individual, then the answer to that would be 'none.'

Thats not to say that a single person cannot run a Root Server.  In fact, I'm 
sure there are many people out there running "root" servers with their
own TLDs.  They may not be offering the use of those to people outside
their organisation and/or network,  or perhaps they are.  The thing is,
that you cant know what every other person in the world is doing with
their machines,  and unless you have some sort of "authority" over a given
space  (presumably handed down via a chain from IANA) you can't tell 
weather or not you are going to be conflicting with other people.


> 
> >The big problem with this isn't that nearly everyone can't see them - the
> >problems would really start if a statistically significant number of DNS
> >resolvers *could* see them - because there can be more than one of them!
> 
> More than one of what?
> 

More than one RSC with the same TLD.


> >THere is no limit to the number of people who can create alternative root
> >structures, and nothing stopping them. Indeed, when run in private, between
> 
> This is very true.  That's why credability and authentication is required
> and that's done through cooperative agreements.  Just like the Legacy Servers.

How does one get that credibility and authentication?
It would seem by your actions, that one gains this credibility by pushing
for everyone to use your service, and calling them names if they don't 
jump at the wonderful opportunity you are giving them. (Speaking of
which..  the word "Twonk" isn't necessarily a FIDO term.  I've heard
it in many places over the years - mostly from non-computer-enthusiasts
who would have had zero contact with the Fidonet world)

> 
> Now the IRSC is recognised also, it simply adds more weight.

Recognised by whom?


> >consenting adults operating internet connected organisations, it is simply
> >another (private) use of the internet to run applications across it -
> >doesn't affect the rest of us, positively *or* negatively.
> 
> Yes, this is totally true.  Until one of your clients wants to access these
> "private" databases and you don't allow it. 
> 
> Your no longer providing full internet access.  You are in fact censoring
> the access the user has to suite your own political motivations.

What if I've never heard of one of these new RSC's, and one of my users
wishes to make use of a site in their TLD.   Is it still my fault
for not knowing about them and changing my configuration to accomodate
them?   If I dont have the time, or resources to continually update
my DNS setup to enable resolution for every new RSC that someone
comes up with, is that still censorship?


> >However, they would be an issue for the rest of the planet if they started
> >actually being *used* by significant numbers of users in the world instead
> >of the 'real' root servers.
> 
> All Root Servers properly configured are REAL ROOT SERVERS.  
> 
> All servers visible on the public internet are for use by the public.  And
> Significant numbers are using alternatives, you just don't want to believe it.


You want us to beleive that so much.  Yet every time I check,  I can't 
resolve these alternate domains using the recommended DNS setup from 
the ISP i'm testing from.  This includes ISPs in both Australia and 
the United States.

Feel free to send me mail backing up your 20 million figure quoted in a 
previous message.



> >one. The notion that a new root name server confederation is somehow more
> >worthy than the existing one is a non sequitur, and I suggest we
> 
> I'll agree with that.  There is no more worthyness from the Legacy Servers
> as there is to AURSC.  They are both operational and available to users.
> 
> Do you drive a Model T Ford by any chance?


What advancements does the AURSC hold over the Legacy servers?  I'm assuming 
thats what you are implying from your question about the Model T?  Oh, hang
on.. that contradicts the statement that neither has more worthyness than
the other...  so what does the question about the Model T mean to imply?


Reagan.