@ On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Jim Fleming wrote:
@
<snip>
@
@ I don't see what this "debate" has to do with North American Network
@ *Operation*, as opposed to politics 
@
@
Brian,
I would think that the members of NANOG would
understand that the Root Name Servers they use
are critical to their operations. This is especially
true if several people on the NANOG list report
that they are having operational problems with
the Root Name Servers.
As a "group", you might want to consider the
following questions...
1. Do NANOG members all support one confederation
of Root Name Servers ?
2. Have NANOG members converted to the NEW
TRUE Root Name Servers ?
3. Are NANOG members mixing legacy Root Name
Servers with entries for the NEW TRUE
Root Name Servers ?
4. Is NANOG as a group working with the U.S.
Government and the National Science
Foundation (NSF) on a transition plan
for the NSF/InterNIC now that we are
approaching the last 12 months of that
contract period ?
5. Does NANOG support any Root Name Servers ?
If so, are those TRUE Root Name Servers
that meet IETF RFC recommendations ?
6. Do NANOG members use any common network
management software to make sure that
the Root Name Servers they use are in
synch, are checked regularly, are coherent,
etc. ?
7. Does NANOG have a transition plan to IPv6
and does it address Root Name Servers
using IPv6 addressing ?
8. Does NANOG sponsor any educational programs
for any or all of the above ?
P.S. NANOG's address is "nanog" not "nanon"...