[24502] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ICANN Draws Fire Over Proposed Charges
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Mon Jul 5 15:58:10 1999
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: patrick@cybernothing.org
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 13:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: linneweh@concentric.net, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990705111624.13964B-100000@unagi.cybernothing.org> from "Patrick Greenwell" at Jul 5, 99 11:28:07 am
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>
> On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>
> > > That is not entirely true.
> >
> > I'd be interested in your thoughts on why you think
> > that there will be a change in the root server
> > operators or placement of servers. As an operator
> > I've been paying attention to this and think I understand
> > whats going on.
>
> Certainly. First, operation of the "A" root server is going to be turned
> over at the direction of the Department of Commerce.
What does that mean?
> Second, at present
> one or more root server operators is refusing to sign a contract with
> ICANN.
I've not seen or heard of a contract that ICANN wants
root server operators to sign.
> Third, it is my understanding that the current "l.root-server.net"
> server is(was?) being designated as the new authoratative "A"
> server(corrections welcome.)
To clarify, the existing root server operators are working
on a process for how change management should occur. Its
not clear to me that a target site has been selected/agreed
nor would I expect to see anything of the kind w/o
such a plan being in place. "L" has been used, as a placeholder,
in some of the discussion.
>
> > > I didn't see the reporter injecting commentary in the article, instead
> > > sticking to objective facts and quotations, so I am curious as to why you
> > > believe they have a "serious misunderstanding" of the issues.
> >
> > mixing a proposed domain registration fee and coordination of
> > root servers seem to be orthaginal issues. While the
> > "objective facts and quotations" may be accurate, they
> > may not have any relevence to each other. Looks a lot
> > like a hash to me...
>
> Umm, he who controls the root servers, controls domain names. I'd say
> they're pretty related issues.
Only to a very limited extent, in a properly configured
system.
--bill
