RE: Roots (was Re: [ga] ICANN TO LOSE COUNTRY CODES?)

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Actually, that's only recently been true. NSI has had the gTLD roots on the
same boxen as the root-servers for years. Only recently (this year) has it
been corrected.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandy Harris [mailto:sandy@storm.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 12:30 PM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Roots (was Re: [ga] ICANN TO LOSE COUNTRY CODES?)
> 
> 
> Darrell Greenwood wrote:
> > 
> > ICANN TO LOSE COUNTRY CODES?
> > Country code chiefs have formed a working group that is
> > considering alternatives to letting ICANN manage their
> > ccTLDs on its root server.
> 
> Methinks I'm missing something here.
> 
> I'd have thought it was obvious that the whole thing needs
> to be heirarchical for performance and load-balancing
> reasons. Ideally, a root server should have nothing on it
> but pointers to roots for TLDs. Then have per-TLD root
> servers.
> 
> ( aside:
> 	Perhaps you need multiple TLD-root servers for an
> 	overused domain like .com. Short of stopping selling
> 	.com names and building some procedure to kill unused
> 	or redundant ones (not bad ideas technically, but I
> 	suspect they won't fly) there seems no alternative
> 	to that. Caching helps, but likely not enough.
> 
> 	Perhaps also it is more efficient to combine roots
> 	and a half dozen small nations might decide to use
> 	one root, or to act as secondaries for each other,
> 	or whatever, to manage cost/performance/reliability
> 	tradeoffs.
> )
> 
> I'd have assumed that any national gov't could ask anyone it
> liked to run its ccTLD. Of course they'd have to pay for that.
> If the nation chose to contract running their root out to NSI,
> that's fine too. There'd be costs for that, but no obvious reason
> any of that revenue should go to ICANN.
> 
> Any root server (NSI or alternate) has to point to whatever the
> national gov't chooses to use. There might be a charge for this,
> but at most a few $100, not the million the article mentions.
> 
> For that matter, I would think the same applies to .gov and
> .mil. If the US gov't or the Pentagon want to run TLDroots for
> those, or contract it to whoever, they can, and the NSI-run
> root must point to them.
> 
> So I cannot see why these folks need a working group.
> 
> If, say, the folks responsible for .uk don't like how
> that domain is being managed, then they build a root server
> for it and tell (not ask) NSI to point to it. Since various
> national bodies have authority for their own ccTLDs, NSI must
> do that.
> 
> So for that part of the problem, I don't see what the working
> group has to talk about. They can just do it.
> 
> Have I misunderstood something here?
> 
> > The move follows resentment
> > from country code leaders that feel excluded from ICANN's
> > decision-making on policies affecting the Internet.
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/14999.html
> 
> If, on the other hand, the issue is that they don't have
> enough input to the ICANN process, then perhaps they, and
> we, have something to talk about here.
> --
> 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