Re: [ga] Re: ICANN & Stability
On 17.09.2002 01:14 "M. Stuart Lynn" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
> There is no threat to Internet stability.
from DENIC's sight I can not agree with you on that as it violates at least
the stability of .DE.
> 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.
"Longstanding policy" cannot be implemented by unilatteraly changing the
rules. The status of ICP 1 is unclear and in rfc 1591 there is no
requirement of zonetransfer. IANA itself says that in the past there was no
check of the zones and frankly I have still no idea which technical check
can be performed by using the zone. In our opinion IANA is asking for data
which is not needed and IANA is not authorized to ask for to perform its
function and where DENIC has no mandate from it's customers to give away.
> 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.
In RFC 1591 contains no requirement for zonetransfers.
> To reiterate, however, there no threat whatsoever to Internet
> stability, since the ns.eu.net nameserver continues to function
Yes, but as you know dns.xlink.net another KPNQwest server has some
> At 4:05 PM -0400 9/16/02, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> >Having read the text of Elisabeth Porteneuve's proposed resolution on
> >server updates (reprinted below), I can't help but get the impression
> >either ICANN/IANA staff is thoroughly incompetent or that you are
> >the process of blackmailing the ccTLD community. It would seem to me
> >some discussion on this topic is warranted as the assertion has been
> >that ICANN itself has threatened the stability of the Internet (a
> >that I presume you would take seriously). As the President and Chief
> >Executive Officer of this Corporation, that ostensibly deems the
> >the Internet to be its highest priority, can you comment on why your
> >has failed to process these updates?
> >Best regards,
> >Whereas the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC) has published
> >its second implementation report,
> >Whereas the stability of the universal Internet has been part of
> >permanent preoccupations since the White Paper document,
> >Whereas on 28 November 1998, both the USG and the ICANN committed
> >to abide by the principle of Internet stability in the MoU,
> >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,
> >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.
> Stuart Lynn
> President and CEO
> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> Tel: 310-823-9358
> Fax: 310-823-8649
> Email: email@example.com
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Fon: +49 69 27235 0
Fax: +49 69 27235 235
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html