Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Stuart and all assembly members,

  This is a bit of an odd and lacking explanation that you provide Stuart.
If you will pardon my blunt response here, 38 ccTLD's does not
even represent 1/3 of the ccTLD's and, all be it a positive and
perhaps stabilizing move for Ripe to take over for the KPNQuest
of ns.eu.net, is hardly a reasonable response in the larger picture
of which Elizabeth and Danny have expressed concerns about.

  As you well know and has been well documented many in the ccTLD
community, did not and have not to this date agreed with the ICP-1
policy that the ICANN BoD has approved/edicted as you suggest
in http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm and more
specifically at http://www.iana.org/faqs/tld-zone-access-faq.htm#A20
and has yet to receive the approval of the stakeholder/user community
to which ICANN under the White Paper and MoU makes very clear and
Elizabeth referenced in her response (See below).

  In conclusion or closing here Stuart, I and it seems ccTLD managers,
clearly do not agree with your explanation here in response to Danny and
Elizabeth.  And that ICP-1 is more of a desire of some very few
ICANN BOD and staff members than it is of the stakeholder/user
community.

M. Stuart Lynn wrote:

> You are assuming, Danny, that the assumptions that underlie
> Elisabeth's proposed resolution are correct. They are not. Perhaps
> you might be interested in the facts before forming your
> "impressions".
>
> There is no threat to Internet stability.  Soon after KPNQwest
> announced its suspension of operations, RIPE NCC agreed to assume
> operation of the ns.eu.net nameserver (which had formerly been
> operated by KPNQwest), and has committed to continue that operation
> for as long as necessary to migrate secondary nameservice to other
> nameservers. That nameserver has been operating for quite some time
> in a sound and stable manner.  The IANA has given priority to
> handling requests to migrate from the KPNQwest nameservers, and as it
> happens 38 of the 41 requests that have been received to migrate
> nameservice from ns.eu.net have been satisfactorily completed.
> (Incidentally, 37 of the 38 ccTLDs that have been migrated have no
> contractual relationship with ICANN.) There are several other ccTLDs
> that have not yet requested to migrate, and the IANA is in the
> process of suggesting that they move along to suitable substitute
> nameservice as well.  Three of the ccTLD requests for migration have
> not yet been completed 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.
> 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.
>
> To reiterate, however, there no threat whatsoever to Internet
> stability, since the ns.eu.net nameserver continues to function
> perfectly.
>
> Stuart
>
> At 4:05 PM -0400 9/16/02, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> >Stuart,
> >
> >Having read the text of Elisabeth Porteneuve's proposed resolution on name
> >server updates (reprinted below), I can't help but get the impression that
> >either ICANN/IANA staff is thoroughly incompetent or that you are engaged in
> >the process of blackmailing the ccTLD community.  It would seem to me that
> >some discussion on this topic is warranted as the assertion has been made
> >that ICANN itself has threatened the stability of the Internet (a subject
> >that I presume you would take seriously).  As the President and Chief
> >Executive Officer of this Corporation, that ostensibly deems the stability of
> >the Internet to be its highest priority, can you comment on why your staff
> >has failed to process these updates?
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Danny
> >
> >
> >Whereas the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC) has published
> >its second implementation report,
> >http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/draft-mission-core-values-02sep02.
> >
> >htm
> >
> >Whereas the stability of the universal Internet has been part of
> >permanent preoccupations since the White Paper document,
> >http://www.icann.org/general/white-paper-05jun98.htm
> >
> >Whereas on 28 November 1998, both the USG and the ICANN committed
> >to abide by the principle of Internet stability in the MoU,
> >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm
> >
> >Whereas the ccTLD Managers has been awaiting since years
> >for correct IANA ccTLD database services, as explicitly specified
> >in the Amendment 2 to the MoU of 11 September 2000, requesting
> >for "Documentation of IANA procedures for root zone editing,
> >root zone generation, and root zone WHOIS service".
> >
> >Whereas the ccTLD IANA Service Requirements has been restated
> >once more in Bucharest on 25 June 2002 and approved unanimously,
> >http://www.dnso.org/constituency/cctld/ccTLDbucharest-communique.html
> >
> >Whereas the ERC reaffirms that "Preserve and enhance the operational
> >stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of
> >the Internet" is on top of the list of ICANN Core's values,
> >
> >Whereas the global interoperability and stability of Internet depends
> >on the TLD name servers,
> >
> >Whereas the recent bankruptcy of KPNQwest, providing secondary
> >services to several ccTLD Registries requested for prompt actions
> >on IANA side to update the name servers records as requested by
> >the ccTLD Managers,
> >
> >Whereas there is widespread dissatisfaction of ccTLD Managers about
> >the ICANN failing to its IANA Function duty, and several name servers
> >updates pending since three months (since June 2002),
> >
> >The NC therefore resolves that:
> >The stability of universal Internet is in danger and request
> >ICANN to take immediate actions to update ccTLD name servers entries.
> >
> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00035.html
>
> --
>
> __________________
> Stuart Lynn
> President and CEO
> ICANN
> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> Tel: 310-823-9358
> Fax: 310-823-8649
> Email: lynn@icann.org
> --
> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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