North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: ICANN Draws Fire Over Proposed Charges
- From: bmanning
- Date: Mon Jul 05 15:59:11 1999
> On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 firstname.lastname@example.org 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
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