Internet Pro Radio | icann.Blog :: Comment to Cavebear

Main Page » ICANN

Previous:	More on RCOM Acquisition
Next:	More Dotster v. ICANN Documents

Comment to Cavebear

by Bret Fausett at 12:00PM (PDT) on August 29, 2003 | Permanent Link | Digg This

I'm not sure I agree with this new post on Karl Auerbach's weblog: "Was ICANN involved in this?� There is no sign of it." I don't see why ICANN should be involved in the manner in which the root server operators deploy their servers. So long as the servers interoperate and coordinate with the master zone file -- and the announced change shouldn't affect those aspects of root server performace at all -- what would ICANN's role be? I don't have Karl's technical background, so I may be missing something, but what?

Later: Karl responds. Thanks!

Posted to:

Main Page

ICANN

Comments

Post a comment

Re: Comment to Cavebear

by Adam on Fri 29 Aug 2003 09:51 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link

There are F Server's cloned all over the place, good for security, stability and geo-politics. J's too.

ICANN's involved: it runs L. Chair of the DNS Root Server System Advisory Committee runs M. Members of ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee includes people involved with running 6 root servers (not including ICANN's L or Murai's M.)

Not at all clear what ICANN (in the sense of the board) should be doing more of.