ICANN Draws Fire Over Proposed Charges

Patrick Greenwell patrick at cybernothing.org
Mon Jul 5 21:18:55 UTC 1999

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

> > 
> > 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? 

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

> > 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


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."

More information about the NANOG mailing list