This is a formal request to ICANN that they hand over the root server to a
not-for-profit organization. I nominate ISC for this task.
: This is a formal request to ICANN that they hand over the root server to a
: not-for-profit organization. I nominate ISC for this task.
And here, I had thought that most of *.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. were ISC-sponsored,
mostly not-for-profit/academic/subsidized servers as it was. To be sure,
VeriSign does not control the majority of such servers. 
You're probably confused that ROOT-SERVERS.NET. != GTLD-SERVERS.NET. The
latter hosts COM. and NET. and is run exclusively by VeriSign.
How does ISC pick these sites/subsidizers?
Thanks,
DJ
Todd Vierling wrote:
Seems to be a pretty informal "formal" request.
---> Phil
donovan hill wrote:
This is a formal request to ICANN that they hand over the root server to
a not-for-profit organization. I nominate ISC for this task.
thanks for your vote of confidence. here are some facts you should know:
1. there are 13 root servers, not one.
2. isc already runs one (f-root).
3. icann doesn't formally read nanog.
Seems to be a pretty informal "formal" request.
It is. But it's still a nice thought. Dunno what ISC thinks about the idea
though.
donovan hill wrote:
> This is a formal request to ICANN that they hand over the root server to
> a not-for-profit organization. I nominate ISC for this task.thanks for your vote of confidence. here are some facts you should know:
1. there are 13 root servers, not one.
gah! I did mean plural.
2. isc already runs one (f-root).
You should be the authority IMO.
3. icann doesn't formally read nanog.
Yeah. I think I'll send a letter.
lists@lazyeyez.net (Donovan Hill) writes:
> thanks for your vote of confidence. here are some facts you should know:
>
> 1. there are 13 root servers, not one.gah! I did mean plural.
in that case i disagree. no single entity should control all of the servers.
> 2. isc already runs one (f-root).
You should be the authority IMO.
i think the selection of the authority needs to be made by a wider
audience. for example, by some assembly of icann. the community
of interest in root name service is world wide, not north american.
> 3. icann doesn't formally read nanog.
Yeah. I think I'll send a letter.
or go to the next icann meeting in rome. or both.
> 2. isc already runs one (f-root).
You should be the authority IMO.
Do you have any particular reasons for requesting this, unless you can
demonstrate a problem then why change anything.
Also, if you spend some time thinking about this you will soon realise that its
a bad idea for one organisation to control the roots. In fact it works nicely if
you find 13 different organisations.
I'm thinking you need to rework your original idea.
Steve
I'll overlook the additional fact that the actual root nameservers are
being run in a way that anybody who believes in RFC2826 is, in general,
fairly happy with (modulo the occasional RFC2870 issue).
Most of the complaints seem centered around the management of the
servers [a-m].gtld-servers.net, which is a totally different beast.
Most of the complaints seem centered around the management of the
servers [a-m].gtld-servers.net, which is a totally different beast.
So that would indeed be a different topic.
Is the problem with the management of the servers of the administration of the
com/net domains?
.. detail required.
Steve
By all accounts I've heard, the servers reliably serve up the contents of the
zones they have been given. The problem is that some people have the foolish
notion that the servers should be allowed to report the non-existence of
something, rather than returning misleading information. I'll let others
decide whether that's "administration of the com/net domains" fault for putting
the data in the zone that created that situation, or whether it's "server
managers" fault for accepting the data as correct.
That sufficient tap-dancing? 
(For the record, I have *absolutely* nothing wrong with somebody offering a
service "If you got an NXDOMAIN, re-try it here and we'll do a search for you",
and software that optionally does such a retry. I even don't mind the existence
of several such services competing. What I *do* mind is when one group uses its
monopoly on a resource to impose a "where do you want to go today?" rather than
giving me the NXDOMAIN and the choice....)