RE: [ga] ICANN - CCTLD Fight Growing

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

It's not the DNS that's the problem. It is where and how they define active
directory objects, related to the DNS name. If it was just DNS, I wouldn't
be worried. It is how they implement their forests of domain controllers.

-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:Harald@Alvestrand.no]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 12:57 AM
To: Roeland Meyer; Darrell Greenwood; ga@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN - CCTLD Fight Growing


At 00:40 06/12/2000 -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>Don't let anyone tell you that Win2K migration is easy ... it isn't. BTW,
>there are VAST implications for the DNS system, in the new concepts behind
>Microsoft Domains, a la Win2K. I'm stunned. A lot of what we're doing may
>become moot, if MS has their way.

:-)
as far as I can tell, Win2K DNS works fine in a corporate environment 
isolated from the outside world. The rest remains to be seen.
btw, migration works fine as long as you do it only at the edges; it's the 
core (name servers, auth servers and so on) that can trip you up badly.

>A point you are making here is somewhat important. I don't believe that
>there is a compromise possible.

Sure there is. The compromise will have to involve the ccTLDs paying ICANN 
some money, and ICANN promising some services to the ccTLDs.
The amounts are negotiable; the verbiage surrounding it unpredictable.

>  The ICANN couldn't have handled this worse,
>if they tried (which I don't believe they did).

I won't argue this point, for good reason :-)

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no
--
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