ICANN Draws Fire Over Proposed Charges
patrick at cybernothing.org
Mon Jul 5 22:46:30 UTC 1999
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Michael Dillon wrote:
> 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?
> > If
> > 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.
Did I say it was a problem? No. I just stated that it was occuring.
> > 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
> > way.
> 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.
Moving the A root server puts it directly in the political arena. The move
is political in nature.
> > 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
> > occuring:
> > http://www.news.com/News/Item/0%2C4%2C38613%2C00.html?dd.ne.txt.0701.07
> 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.
Ignorance is it's own reward.
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