Bill, I suspect this thread has degenerated to the point of irrelevance, so this will be my last comment. Feel free to have the last word.
On Jul 26, 2010, at 2:30 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > yes, ICANN is the current IANA functions _operator_. The IANA _never_ > ran/operated network infrastructure (root server operations) prior to > ICANNs > assumption of the role. This is the distinction. Perhaps w/o a > difference. As when IANA was operated by USC, IANA staff (still) do not run root server operations. The ICANN group that run the root server (and do other DNS things) are distinct from the folks who do IANA stuff. I would argue that IANA staff have always had an operational role in the management of the various registries and any additional operational activities performed by ICANN were requested by the community. I'm sure you disagree. > Yes they do a fine job. But root server operations is not in ICANNs > charter or > mission. Their stated role, when they took it over from USC was as a > temporary > steward, until they could find someone to take it on. Only later did > they > back away from that statement and claimed it for their own. True, if somewhat negatively skewed and abbreviated. If I understand correctly (since I was doing other things in the timeframe we're talking here), a set of new root servers were created to fill up the 512 byte response and a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) between NTIA/NIST and ICANN was undertaken to establish where the new root server(s) were to be distributed (among many other things, see http://www.icann.org/en/committees/dns-root/crada.htm). However, my understanding (since I wasn't involved in root operations back then) was that no real progress was made on the CRADA. Folks who were involved in that CRADA might wish to correct me or expand on why. Without resolution of the CRADA, I'd imagine ICANN acting unilaterally would have generated far more criticism. >>> and is trying to take over root zone editorial control. > You describe the current state of affairs very well. Yes, you used present tense so describing current state of affairs seemed appropriate. Regards, -drc
