RE: [ga] We can't be against it?

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

First of all, Jefsey,NSI and I had this discussion last year, at MdR. NSI
does what every other largish corp does, they have a disaster recovery plan,
usually called business resumption plan, by most IT managers. This includes
off-site backups. I don't think that this is anywhere near the issue that
many have thought it to be. I would guess that Tucows also has one. Even lil
ol' MHSC has one (buncha 2.2GB magneto-optical disks in a SF Bay Area Wells
Fargo Safety Deposit box, with duplicates in Colorado Springs). 

A larger issue is the capital loss of the servers themselves. However, I
know of at least 25 other current root zone capable servers that are online
right now, with 100Mbps 100baseT bandwidth, a very large backbone colo
space, that could pick up the slack in less than 30 minutes notice. I have
root access on all of them. All are RFC 2870 compliant and I just finished
upgrading their root zone files. Some of them have been operational for
three years and the ORSC has a bunch more. Operationally, the Internet is
well covered.

If that's the sort of stuff they are going to talk about then the MdR
meeting has no value-add for MHSC. If they are going to go into competition
with MHSC security services, then I have even more reason to stop
contribution to the ICANN process. If they are even going to think that they
can tell MHSC not to sell and run our zone servers then thay can PUAR and
show us the court order, and Sexton can be thankful that he's in Toronto. If
they're going to try and restrict distribution of the root zone file then
our FOIA papers are already filled out, since I've been expecting that move
for some time now.



|> From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:jefsey@wanadoo.fr]
|> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 3:13 AM
|> 
|> On 03:12 29/09/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:
|> >hmm, so some don't consider business registrants/others
|> >a constituency?  We think we are represented by one of the 
|> ICANN DNSO
|> >constituencies. And the non commercial registrants are 
|> engaged through the
|> >N-C Constituency.
|> >
|> >...and that security and data escrow are a priority, and 
|> should become even more so.
|> 
|> Sure, domain name protection is of the essence.
|> 
|> But is the escrow of bugged systems and tables the only 
|> system to protect 
|> us. I doubt it. Let be clear: would NSI be blown up, burnt 
|> or flooded, what 
|> would you make with the 24,000,000 DN data they have or not 
|> in a vault? You 
|> would need their system to be rebuilt in the same way, in 
|> the very hour.

--
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