On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 9:55 AM, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
That has always been the case in the past. Given the level of public unhappiness that the US Dep't of Commerce has with ICANN's plan to add zillions of new TLDs, and noting that several of the root servers are
Speaking of some public unhappiness with new TLD plan... if you hadn't noticed, the DoC published a notice of inquiry regarding renewal of the ICANN contract expiring in September for the IANA functions.... http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/FR_IANA_FurtherNOI_06102011.pdf If not pleased with ICANN's performance it might be worth reading the published DRAFT SOW for the renewal from the federal register and Investigate if the proposed terms seem to provide sufficient accountability/constraint. If not, it would be prudent to submit comments answering the questions listed in the inquiry :) Specifically, regarding "C.2.2.1.3.2 Responsibility and Respect for Stakeholders .... .... For delegation requests for new generic TLDS (gTLDs), the Contractor shall include documentation to demonstrate how the proposed string has received consensus support from relevant stakeholders and is supported by the global public interest.".
run by agencies of the US government, who knows what will happen in the future.
I'm not so sure volunteer root operators are in a position to editorialize and for that to have a positive effect. ICANN could go down the path of stating that this causes internet stability (due to operators publishing a partial root). That would then be sufficient justification to remove root server operators from the root zone, and use the proceeds of gTLD sales and gTLD renewal fees to hire (non-volunteer) operators, under contract requiring hired root operators to publish exactly an ICANN sanctified root.
R's, John -- -JH