ICANN Draws Fire Over Proposed Charges
michael at memra.com
Mon Jul 5 22:38:14 UTC 1999
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> It means that the operator of the root server in question will change.
You mean like when C&W took over operation of much of MCI's network?
> I were to hazard a guess the place of operation and the physical server
> itself will be different as well.
Is this a problem? People change routers and circuits all the time. In
fact, the physical root server hardware has frequently changed with nary a
peep on this list.
> 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.
That's good then. This is precisely the job of operations folks, to keep
the services running even when the underlying physical or logical
infrastructure changes. It's not necessarily an easy task but most of it
is not rocket science either.
> 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
Why is this bad? Sounds like the move would take the A root server out of
the political arena and put it into the hands of the technical ops folks
which would be a decided improvement, IMHO.
> 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
Sheesh! I don't even have to look at that article to know that you are not
going to learn anything useful to network ops from a newsmagazine.
Michael Dillon - E-mail: michael at memra.com
Check the website for my Internet World articles - http://www.memra.com
More information about the NANOG