Dear colleagues for your info,Fabio.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bigi, Fabio
Sent: 09 October 2001 16:41
To: 'Philipp Hoschka'
Cc: Androuchko, Vladimir
Subject: RE: PSO-PC Alternative Roots Position
Dear Philipp,
many thanks for the comments provided to Vlad.I think however that we have to respect the timing of the various events.
Namely, the PSO-PC has in the September Meeting agreed on the following:
"Pending discussions to be held at the occasion of ITU-T Study Group 2 Meeting
(Geneva, 4-09-01 to 14-09-01) the following statement was provisionally agreed:
The Internet DNS currently operates using a Single Authoritative Root Server System.
Although, it would be technically possible to devise and standardize a fully compliant alternative
multiple root server system, there appears no technical reason for changing from the present
working system, as this would require the development of a new set of protocols for use
by the DNS.
The secretary will inform ICANN of this opinion immediately after
the meeting of ITU-T Study Group 2.
However should the ITU-T Study Group 2 view not be in line with this opinion the matter
will be brought back to the PSO-PC for further discussion."
Then there has been the Meeting of ITU-T SG 2 (4-09-01 to 14-09-01), which agreed on the following:
"Study Group 2 has noted the PSO statement and has no objections to it.
However, Study Group 2 notes that there may be other issues in addition to
technical reasons such as administrative and national sovereignty
considerations."
Subsequently, we have had the October conference call and the position of the various participants were clarified with clear interventions of organizations supporting different statements and this is correctly reported in the Minutes.
I hope that this clarification will assist you,best regards,
Fabio
-----Original Message-----
From: Philipp Hoschka [mailto:ph@W3.ORG]
Sent: 09 October 2001 14:39
To: Androuchko, Vladimir
Cc: pso-pc, ITU (MLIST)
Subject: Re: PSO-PC Alternative Roots Position
Vlad,
this looks good, although I have a couple of editorial suggestions
below.
I would also prefer if the IETF statement could go first, since it
provides a more substantial clarification of the PSO statement,
and has wider support in the PSO.
I am concerned that we get the messaging right on this issue -
having just been in Germany, I saw a headline in local IT press
stating that "ICANN gives in to Alternative Root Servers", which
was based on the minutes of the previous PSO teleconf. So the
misunderstanding seems to be rather widespread, and we should
as much as possible avoid having to spend much time to provide
clarifications on our statement.
"Androuchko, Vladimir" a écrit :
...
> Dear Stuart,
> On behalf of the Protocol Council, I'm sending you the Position of the
> PSO-PC on the Alternative Roots Issue. It was agreed that each Protocol
> Supporting Organization gives also its comments/statements concerning the
> Alternative Roots Issue.
>
> The PSO Statement is:
Rather: The PSO Statement (supported by ETSI) is:
> "The Internet DNS currently operates using a Single Authoritative Root
> Server System. Although, it would be technically possible to devise and
> standardize a fully compliant alternative multiple root server system, there
> appears to be no technical reason for changing from the present working
> system, as this would require the development of a new set of protocols for
> use by the DNS."
>
> The ITU-T Study Group 2 conclusion on the Alternative Roots Issue, which was
> reached during the ITU-T Study Group 2 meeting (Geneva, 4-14 September 2001)
> states:
> "Study Group 2 has noted the PSO statement and has no objections to it.
> However, Study Group 2 notes that there may be other issues in addition to
> technical reasons such as administrative and national sovereignty
> considerations."
>
> IETF Statement on the Alternative Roots Issue is:
Rather: The IETF Statement (supported by ETSI and W3C) is:
> "The Internet currently operates using a tree-structured name space known as
> the DNS. Of necessity, such a name space must have a single, authoritative
> root. Moving to a model that would not require such a single, authoritative
> root would require replacing the present, working DNS with some other
> system. Such a replacement would require the development of a new naming
> paradigm, as well as the protocols and software to implement it. Developing
> and deploying such replacement protocols would take years, and would have
> enormous potential for disruption of the Internet.
> IETF does not see any technical benefit in such an effort."
>
> ETSI supported the ITU-T Study Group 2 Statement and the IETF Statement.
> W3C supported IETF Statement.
Strike this
> Sincerely yours,
> Vladimir