On Sat, 16 Jul 2005, Kim Davies wrote:

 > Quoting Ian Smith on Saturday July 16, 2005:
 > | 
 > | Also on the technical front of decentralising the DNS root:
 > |   US govt interference <i>is</i> a big deal, says Europe
 > |   http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/11/centr_root/
 > 
 > I think these kind of big pronouncements probably need to be taken
 > with some salt, perhaps a cupful when it is in The Register. There is
 > usually ongoing talk and speculation about how the root could be managed
 > differently. Such talk just gains a bit more currency when it can be
 > contrasted against US government policy.

Surely.  However these WGIG Report determinations make it pretty damn
clear, despite extremely diplomatic language, that the notion of any one
country 'authorising' the internet root zone, thus assuming the power to
(say) remove the ccTLD of an 'offending' national government, isn't on
in any of the models being considered, if I read it right. 

From what I've seen, most 'alternative root' offerings to date have been
crude commercialism dressed up as 'helping the consumer'.  This (and no
doubt further proposals to come) seems something rather different, more
in the traditional line of technical innovation, coding around damage.

By the way, do you know why there might be a 'technical' limit of 13
root servers?

Cheers, Ian