@ Jim Fleming wrote:
@ > People might want to look on the bright side
@ > of the recent failure by Network Solutions, Inc.
@ > to properly distribute the .COM zone information.
@ Let me see if I understand this logic.
@ _NSI_ screws up. This proves that the volunteer and govt TLD name servers
@ can't do their job, and that _NSI_ should do their job.
You might also want to look at it from a .COM customer
point of view....
.COM customers have subscribed with NSI to register
their domain names. They might expect that NSI will
invest in the infrastructure necessary to provide that
service with few if any interruptions. One of the only
ways that NSI can totally control the level of customer
service they want to deliver is to own or subcontract
the operations of their TLD Name Servers. They could
do this by setting up a special, secure, high-speed network
behind the scenes for zone transfers and high-performance
servers to handle the expected demand for .COM names.
If they do this, then the legacy Root Name Servers
will be free from operating .COM, .NET and .ORG.
The legacy Root Name Servers can be migrated to
be True RFC 2010 compatible Root Name Servers
or the U.S. Government could decide that the best way
for it to get completely out of the domain name business
is to turn off the legacy Root Name Servers...
Would this impact anything...?...of course not, NSI
and ISI have already set up new RFC 2010 Root Name
Servers that some people have merged into their root.cache
file. Those servers do not have .COM, .NET and .ORG on
them. They are different from the legacy Root Name
Servers, they are not run by the U.S. Government or