Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

[Marc Schneiders <marc@fuchsia.bijt.net>]

On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, at 16:14 [=GMT-0700], M. Stuart Lynn wrote:

> There is no threat to Internet stability.

What about .DE? They think otherwise. See:

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/anw-16.09.02-000/

> Three of the ccTLD requests for migration have
> not yet been completed

Meaning that nothing happened on a technical level (in the zone).

> because the ccTLD operators have (despite
> repeated requests) failed to cooperate in allowing the IANA to
> perform technical checks as provided by longstanding IANA policy.

One of the three is .DE, one of the largest TLDs in the world, bigger than
NET and ORG. The others are .AT (Austria) and .GR (Greece).

> See the FAQs at <http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm>
> for a description that we recently posted summarizing for ccTLD
> managers the policy, its longstanding basis (documented back to RFC
> 1591 in March 1994), and the means by which those seeking to change
> the policy should proceed.

Yes, well, not everyone reads these texts as you do, to put it in a
friendly way. And whosoever approved this so-called ICP? Nobody. Not even
the Board of ICANN.

> To reiterate, however, there no threat whatsoever to Internet
> stability, since the ns.eu.net nameserver continues to function
> perfectly.

It seems to me that .DE has (according to the ICANN root zone) a
nameserver on a KPNQwest IP still. It is no longer in the .DE zone (as
published by DE) among its nameservers. In fact there are 4 new
nameservers for .DE, spread over the globe, that ICANN also refuses to
add to the root-zone. Great for stability!

But below all this lies the question, whether it is a good thing to
endanger stability by blackmailing ccTLDs into following ICANNs
interpretation of bottom up concensus policies? Even if ICANN is right,
should it block the greater stability of .DE?

--
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