RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

["Alf Hansen" <Alf.Hansen@uninett.no>]

Roeland,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland M.J. Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@MHSC.com]
> Sent: 4. september 2000 19:20
> To: Alf.Hansen@uninett.no; ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member
>
>
> > From: Alf Hansen [mailto:Alf.Hansen@uninett.no]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2000 10:50 PM
>
> > > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Simon
> > > Higgs
> > > Sent: 4. september 2000 00:22
>
> > > >And this I don't like.
> > >
> > > I agree. But certain facts of life are here to stay:
> > >
> > > 1. Alt.roots have been created as a direct result of:
> > ...
> >
> > Alt.roots should not be created unless they follow the specs
> > defined by the
> > IETF and the IAB. If Alt. roots have been created for other
> > reasons, f.ex.
> > because some people disagree to certain aspects of
> > ICANN/IANA, the Alt.
> > roots should be abandoned.
>
> I will remind all and sundry that the three most useless phrases in the
> English language are "could've", "should've", and "would've",since they
> are all variations of reality denial. Following that, the most useless
> words are "could", "should", and "would", since they are all variations
> of wish petitioning or impotent opnionizing, unless one has direct power
> to follow through on them immediately. The ONLY thing that counts is
> what is happening RIGHT NOW!
>
> Other root-zones exist, with various flavors of success and
> implementation completion, right now. Wishing them away, won't make them
> go away. One must look at, and appreciate, the reality that caused them
> to exist in the first place.
>
> If you believe that the Alt.roots should not be created then stop them
> now, or quit your complaining, don't use them, or ignore them. Impotent
> venting of opinion is what we've had entirely too much of, these past
> four years.
>

I have very limited power in this context. I will work for the establishment
of a contract between someone (probably ICANN) and the TLDs (perhaps an
identical contract for both gTLDs and ccTLDs) where operation an management
of the ICANN root servers will be included. In the contract(s) there should
("should" is all I can say for the moment...) be at least an identification
of the (13) ICANN root servers. And also some definition of quality of
service, responsibilities, contact points etc.

I can then use my power as the manager of the .no ccTLD to sign this
contract (if the terms are acceptable), and thereby add some quality for the
general public in Norway using the .no domain. If other cc- and gTLDs do the
same, we will all have a better Internet service, because we are using the
unique a.root, as the IAB specifies.

Using alt.roots should be abandoned in the contract. Unless otherwise agreed
between both parties.

Is this unfair? I don't think so.

Best regards,
Alf H

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html