ICANN Draws Fire Over Proposed Charges

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

> > 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

2

>
>
> > > 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?

It means that the operator of the root server in question will change. If
I were to hazard a guess the place of operation and the physical server
itself will be different as well. In any case it would seem that your
original statement that "the root servers will stay put, where they are
and operated by the current group of operators" is not entirely correct.

> 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.

Sorry to hear that. Perhaps you can talk to someone at ICANN? Ask
them about the "Memoradum of Particpation" they circulated. They're not
particularly good at keeping everyone informed as to what they are doing.
Then again, they probably don't want anyone to know that they are
experiencing some difficulty.... oops.

If one or more of the current root server operators refuse to sign,
operation of the root server is going to change hands if ICANN has their
way.

> 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.

And what, pray tell would be changing?

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.

Bill, perhaps this is another issue which you need to speak to ICANN
about? It's disconcerting to me that as an operator that you haven't been
informed about these issues. Here's an article from News.com on what is
occuring:

http://www.news.com/News/Item/0%2C4%2C38613%2C00.html?dd.ne.txt.0701.07

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell Telocity http://www.telocity.com
(408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f
                 "This is our time. It will not come again."
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

3

It means that the operator of the root server in question will change.

You mean like when C&W took over operation of much of MCI's network?

If
I were to hazard a guess the place of operation and the physical server
itself will be different as well.

Is this a problem? People change routers and circuits all the time. In
fact, the physical root server hardware has frequently changed with nary a
peep on this list.

In any case it would seem that your
original statement that "the root servers will stay put, where they are
and operated by the current group of operators" is not entirely correct.

That's good then. This is precisely the job of operations folks, to keep
the services running even when the underlying physical or logical
infrastructure changes. It's not necessarily an easy task but most of it
is not rocket science either.

If one or more of the current root server operators refuse to sign,
operation of the root server is going to change hands if ICANN has their
way.

Why is this bad? Sounds like the move would take the A root server out of
the political arena and put it into the hands of the technical ops folks
which would be a decided improvement, IMHO.

Bill, perhaps this is another issue which you need to speak to ICANN
about? It's disconcerting to me that as an operator that you haven't been
informed about these issues. Here's an article from News.com on what is
occuring:

http://www.news.com/News/Item/0%2C4%2C38613%2C00.html?dd.ne.txt.0701.07

Sheesh! I don't even have to look at that article to know that you are not
going to learn anything useful to network ops from a newsmagazine.

4

> It means that the operator of the root server in question will change.

You mean like when C&W took over operation of much of MCI's network?

> If
> I were to hazard a guess the place of operation and the physical server
> itself will be different as well.

Is this a problem? People change routers and circuits all the time. In
fact, the physical root server hardware has frequently changed with nary a
peep on this list.

Michael,

Did I say it was a problem? No. I just stated that it was occuring.

> If one or more of the current root server operators refuse to sign,
> operation of the root server is going to change hands if ICANN has their
> way.

Why is this bad? Sounds like the move would take the A root server out of
the political arena and put it into the hands of the technical ops folks
which would be a decided improvement, IMHO.

Moving the A root server puts it directly in the political arena. The move
is political in nature.

> Bill, perhaps this is another issue which you need to speak to ICANN
> about? It's disconcerting to me that as an operator that you haven't been
> informed about these issues. Here's an article from News.com on what is
> occuring:
>
> http://www.news.com/News/Item/0%2C4%2C38613%2C00.html?dd.ne.txt.0701.07

Sheesh! I don't even have to look at that article to know that you are not
going to learn anything useful to network ops from a newsmagazine.

Ignorance is it's own reward.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell Telocity http://www.telocity.com
(408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f
                 "This is our time. It will not come again."
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/