Are we going to have to go back to %hacking domain names, such as:
foobar.tvshow%ORSC, foobar.tvshow%MSN, foobar.tvshow%AOL, foobar.tvshow%ICANN, foobar.tvshow%pacificroot, foobar.tvshow%new.net, foobar.tvshow%name.space
and so on?
That doesn't solve the problem. The % is not effectively different from the . in your example, and if you replace % with ., it becomes quite obvious that you've just inserted a new top-level. Once you've done that, who controls who gets ICAN vs. AOL vs. MSN, and the problem repeats. Anyone who decides to run a competing root for resolving these hack-names and voila, now foobar.tvshow%AOL means different things depending on where you resolve %AOL to.
Were you not aware of the existence of one or more such organizations when the IAB formulated this document?
I am *not* privy to IAB deliberations, but I'm fairly sure that they were painfully aware of their existence - the IAB doesn't issue documents in a vacuum. RFC2826 was issued because the IAB was aware if their existence.
I fail to see how RFC2826 is in any way "political". Upon careful re-reading it boils down to:
If you use one root, everybody agrees what things look like.
If you use multiple roots, what people will see depends on which root they ask.
How is this political?
It becomes political when it goes beyond those two statements and says "Since these two statements are true, everyone should use one root." It becomes completely political when it expands that to encompass the concept of "ICANN root is the one true root. Thou shall have no other root before me." While I agree that having one true root is good, and that for the time being, that should be the ICANN root, the bottom line is that whether we like it or not, that is, indeed, a political issue and not a technical one. Sure, the desire to have one root is driven by technical merits. However, how that root is chosen, which root it is, and who gets to decide are all political issues. The fact that the current method of choice is "It's the one that has been there the longest" doesn't change the fact that it is a method of choice, and that it is a political issue. Owen