> > 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"
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