I'd like to correct a fallacy, just before it gets started. I'm only doing this because this was so widely cross-posted. I correct this, not because I am enamoured with ICANN. It is because I don't want alternate root-server systems tarnished with false ideas and concepts. There is a huge difference in stability between alternet root server and ICANN root servers. There are serious operational issues that are different between alternet roots and ICANN roots. This stems primarily from the fact that the alternet roots are adding new TLDs at a higher rate than the ICANN is. This is in addition to the normal motion of IP addrs, as hosts get moved around, maintained, re-assigned. The alternate roots are actually adding TLDs, the ICANN isn't, yet. Even when the ICANN does, it is unlikely that they will ever match the addition rate of the alternate root system. The net result of this is, by the definition of stability, the system with the higher rate of change is more unstable. It is the fact that there are few failures, in the face of this instability, that the alternate root systems stand out as superior. Given the fact that the ICANN root system has been glacially frozen for the past four years (aka. stable as an ice-cube in an antarctic winter) there is really no reason for ANY root-zone failures on the part of ICANN/NSI. Let's face it, two or three root-zone edits per year hardly even registers as brownian motion. Yet the ICANN/NSI root server system has been documented to fail, repeatedly, for the past three years. With some outages having lasted as long as three days. Mainly due to problems with, what should be, a regular automated operational system. The issues are not about which system is inherently more stable. It's about operations management. If the alternate root system operators were running the ICANN/NSI root system it would probably have fewer failures. The converse case, I leave to the imagination of the reader. The alternate root system cannot be more stable than the ICANN/NSI system and it isn't. However, it has a great deal lower failure rate, in spite of the inherent instability of regular TLD additions. It is the one area where I have a great deal of concern about ICANN adding more TLDs next week. I'll see you all in Marina Del Rey. --- Roeland M.J. Meyer Managing Director, MHSC-NET Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc. /ICANN/DNSO/WG-C, WG-B, and GA member

-----Original Message----- From: Philippe Landau [mailto:lists@A-Z-Internet.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 7:49 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Cc: domain-policy@lists.netsol.com; Rick Macdougall; discuss-list@opensrs.org Subject: legacy root servers missing domains again ?

wouldn't be too surprising after the DOC/NSI/ICANN cabal did nothing to correct problems revealed last time it happened. talking stability while staging intrigues. and illegally censoring the net, for the first time with admittedly political justification (voteauction.com). corporate government is just not compatible with stability, especially when undermining democracy through systematic corruption. if it continues like this, alternative roots will take over much faster then expected, be it just because they are more stable.

kind regards philippe, InternetRoots.com

--- *** --- <nslookup:www.bluesnews.com/*/62.2.32.250>

Non-authoritative answer: www.bluesnews.com A 61660 205.229.73.2

Authority: BLUESNEWS.com NS 61660 ns1.ugonetworks.com 205.229.75.1 BLUESNEWS.com NS 61660 ns2.ugonetworks.com 205.229.75.2 BLUESNEWS.com NS 61660 nserv1.actionworld.com 206.41.27.5 NSLookup normal completion. ---

<nslookup:www.bluesnews.com/*/a.root-servers.net>

Authoritative answer: Name Error - domain name referenced does not exist. NSLookup Terminated. ---

<nslookup:www.rhythms.net/*/a.root-servers.net>

Authoritative answer: Name Error - domain name referenced does not exist. NSLookup Terminated. ---

http://voteauction.com/ http://62.116.31.68/pr2.htm http://voteauction.de/