coordinated and therefore not "multiple root zones"), there is nothing to stop one root zone from adding a {TLD,SLD} which already exists in another.
There's a strong incentive not to do that. It diminishes the value of both versions of that TLD. To do so would be to shoot yourself and the other guy in the foot. Darwinism in action.
Sexton says the same thing, and yet it still happens (some of the new.net TLDs conflict with some of the other pirate-radio TLDs, and this was hardly the first such event). This is why it's more than just a bad idea, it has proven to happen, resulting in confusion and non-atomic lookups for everybody on all sides. It just doesn't work, despite all of the so-called good intentions. I'm also annoyed by the "freedom" pitch when I know damn well that the real issue for most of the pirate TLD operators is money. Maybe setting up alternate TLDs in order to spite ICANN was the original objective but they always seem to up as lawsuits (or threats of lawsuits) regarding lost revenues and ownership rights whenever somebody else "pirates" one of the pirate TLDs from the first pirate. The "moral" packaging is a canard in almost all cases, with the final issue being the very points that most of the pirates scream at ICANN over: money and arrogance. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/