<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ispcp] Note to ISOC members on the NTIA request for comments on the MoU
- To: mcfadden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [ispcp] Note to ISOC members on the NTIA request for comments on the MoU
- From: Greg Ruth <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 10:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=fxZ7T8DpIojXlGyMOt4LR+80qcEZYeOXyUpMfUdJa7urcFNopJAhg5Eef54C62kwlfq61yR2UxMaesZ7xsSGBqQ13rKNesT1x5meBLZMduawTbZaJGZpUTuSAl/o8YJx+JAcvCiz80RhXVZ1ZJe48MYVpSiw95a490ceNM271To= ;
- In-reply-to: <44AA99EC.2020703@21st-century-texts.com>
- Sender: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
All,
Does anyone else have a problem with the statement
"...operational authority over the DNS root name server
system through formal arrangements with the root name server operators
is not desirable. We believe that the current distributed and redundant
way of operating the root name servers by a dozen independent
organizations is highly successful."
I think this Blanche DuBois strategy (depending on the kindness of
strangers) is rather ingenuous (or, perhaps, disingenuous). It
reflects the culture of the Internet about 20 years ago, when
everything was done informally by "gentleman's agreement" (sorry
Maggie). Things have changed. What's wrong with formal arrangements
with the root name server operators?
Greg
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|