|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: ICANN Draws Fire Over Proposed Charges
> > On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 [email protected] 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
|