RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Alf,

Yes, you can do that. But this only prevents the signatories from using
something other than ICANN root-servers. It has no effect on
non-signatories, such as MHSC. Within NO, right now, there are companies
using their onwn internal root-zone servers, if they have any sort of
effective firewall at all. That they are using the legacy root-zone, is
incidental. Such a prohibition as you  contemplate would casue either
much consternation within NO, or simply be ignored, in favor of
security. In addition, some NO servers are currently using NS1.MHSC.NET
to resolve root (No, I will not say whom, that is MHSC proprietary
information).

Unless I am grossly mistaken, the mechanism that you propose is neither
binding, or simply will not work. For one thing, no contract between NO
and an NO ISP is binding on that ISP's customer. For another, An
independent host, in Norway, can provide DNS services for any non-NO
domain that they want, you can't shut them down, either in law, or
otherwise. Running a independent name server is not a criminal activity,
by any stretch of the imagination. No one has, to date, been arrested
and charged for this.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alf Hansen [mailto:Alf.Hansen@uninett.no]
> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 1:38 PM
> To: Roeland M.J. Meyer; ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member
> 
> 
> 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@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html