It smells reactive and petty rather than really well thought through.
And I would think that the DNSO, and thus the IDNO via its future DNSO
membership, ought to have had a voice in this.
It is not clear who is going to be building and maintain the master root
zone file. (Not that that is such a big job, but it is a job that has to
be done by somebody.)
> 2. For a very, very long time, it was planned to move the primary root
> there. At a minuimum, it eliminates potential "confusion" about
> authorities and goals. It has also been planne to remove the primary root
> from direct public use, instead having only the secondaries used
> publicly. This improves robustness.
I haven't heard of the desirability of this move to ISI before.
I've heard that NSI has a pretty solid computer facility with lots of
protections against environmental/power hazards and such.
I don't know that ISI has the same degree of backup.
It seems that one might prefer a facility more like CORE was establishing
- a facility designed pretty much from the ground up to be physically
secure, with good power, good environmentals, and good connectivity.
--karl--
-
This message was sent via the IDNO-DISCUSS mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno-discuss" to
majordomo@idno.org. For more information, see http://www.idno.org/