ICANN Draws Fire Over Proposed Charges

bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Mon Jul 5 20:04:45 UTC 1999

> On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > > 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"
> 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


More information about the NANOG mailing list