Re: [council] Revised resolution in response to Stuart Lynn's request

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

J. Scott,

The local time makes Bruce will be on line in few hours,
but I am still here ... here is a very short explanation.
You are correct that words look similar.

The 3rd resolution (name servers for TLD) says:
   ...improve the quality of DNS data at the top level of the DNS. 
while the 4th (quality at all levels in the system) says:
   ...improve the DNS data quality at all levels of the DNS hierarchy.

The first resolution is related to 240+ current TLDs and their
name servers, and concerns only name servers update in IANA 
database, from which you generate the root file.

The second resolution is related to millions of name servers
for domain names which are children or grand children of TLDs.

Kind regards,
Elisabeth
--

======================================================================
From: "J. Scott Evans" <jse@adamspat.com>
To: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, <council@dnso.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Revised resolution in response to Stuart Lynn's request
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:00:48 -0400

Bruce, et. al.

I am slightly confused.  I received a resolution from Elisabeth.  In it she
stated that her original resolution had been revised into two separate
resolutions.  However, the second resolved clause in her proposed resolution
looks to me a lot like the resolved clause in this resolution.  Am I correct
or am I missing something?

J. Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
To: <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:17 AM
Subject: [council] Revised resolution in response to Stuart Lynn's request


> Hello All,
>
> In response to feedback received from Marilyn and Elisabeth, here is a
> slightly revised resolution to the one posted on Friday 27 Sept 2002.  As
> discussed in the teleconference on 26 Sept, I have separated the
resolution
> from Elisabeth
> (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00088.html)
> that relates to problems cctld managers are having getting updates made to
> root zone, from this resolution that is more general that responds to
Stuart
> Lynn's letter to the names council.
>
> The following resolution is the proposed response to Stuart Lynn's
request.
>
> ***************
>
> Whereas the stability of the DNS depends on the quality of the nameserver
> information contained in the zones at all levels of the DNS hierarchy.
>
> Whereas Stuart Lynn and Vint Cerf have written to the Names Council
> on 21 September seeking the opinion of the Names Council on the
> suggestion to ask the Committee on Security and Stability
> (http://www.icann.org/committees/security/) to develop a recommendation on
> the most sound technical practices to follow to improve the DNS data
quality
> at all levels in the system,
>
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cerf-lynn-letter-to-names-council-20sep0
> 2.htm
>
> Whereas the responsibility of the DNS data quality is
> a shared responsibility, which comes in addition to the core IANA
function,
> and methods to improve the DNS data quality need to consider the increased
> cost on Registries and Registrars and Registrants altogether, in the TLD
> space.
>
>
> The Names Council resolves that:
>
> The ICANN Board should ask the Committee on Security and Stability to work
> cooperatively with the ICANN staff responsible for performing the IANA
> function, the TLD managers, and registrars, to develop a
> recommendation on the most sound technical practices to follow to improve
> the DNS data quality at all levels of the DNS hierarchy.
>