That works, up until the point where India decides to use a
different alternative root solution than China does.The only people affected by this are the people who run
the alternative root used by China because, presumably,
it means that they lose some business to a competitor
who has won the Indian market.
Not at all. Any third party who might want to see both the Indian sites and the Chinese sites would also lose, because they couldn't use both sets of alternative root servers at the same time. Any ISP that might serve some customers who want to see one set of sites, and another set of customers who want to see the other set, would also lose.
In other words, just about everyone else in the world would also lose.
That works, up
until the point where the inexperienced alternative root operators
screw something up and their entire "expanded" Internet goes down,
while the real root servers continue normal operations.Yes, and Google works until they screw something up and
their wonderful search engine goes down while Excite and
Yahoo et al. continue normal operations.
Yes, but people aren't forced by their ISP to use a given search site. They can use any search site they want. That same level of choice does not exist with one or more alternative roots.
The balkanization of the 'net is something to be avoided at all
possible costs.My company makes good money off balkanization of the 'net
and we are definitely *NOT* the only one. AOL has always
operated a network apart from the rest.
AOL is a bad choice here. They've finally decided that the walled garden model doesn't work, and they're opening up all their content to the whole world, all you have to do is use their portal.
If you're going to make arguments, you should at least choose examples that support your thesis.
Remember, the public root systems are not attacking
the ICANN root infrastructure at the network layer
in any way. They are not impeding the ability of the
ICANN roots to function and they are not stopping
people from following your "only one root" model.
Actually, they are. They are causing confusion. People don't understand why they can't get to a given set of sites. Intentionally creating such a situation is just about the worst possible thing you could do.
Their entrepreneurial spirit is consistent with the
free and open way in which the Internet has developed.
No, it's not. If it had been, they would have worked their business model through the IETF.
Remember the paraphrase from Voltaire:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it"
I have said that before on many occasions. However, in this case, I do not defend your right to say it. In my opinion, your doing so undermines the most fundamental basis of the Internet.
