Running code. We need running code. And at some point CORE should
quietly do a load test, and then, shortly thereafter, publically do a
load test.
> > 3) The reorganization of IANA will go on. The new IANA will try to follow
> > most of the indications of the Green Paper,
>
> Fortunately, several of the GP comments supported the IANA proposal of
> Jan 13th (never announced or published as an internet-draft). So, IANA
> should simply announce that it is following the program requested by the
> comments, imperfect as it is.
This is the real trick. Jon may not want to proceed without some
kind of wink from Ira...
> > and has to fight for keeping the
> > authority on the Root Servers (possibly, this time, with direct control of
> > the A-Root).
> >
> I think that fight has already been won. The GP proposes giving such
> to IANA, and IANA itself demonstrated that it really does have control
> over the root servers, because the operators will follow IANA.
The question is, who will IANA follow. If ITAG gets its act together
and starts serious work, that's one thing. If ITAG waits for some
kind of signal from Ira that it's OK for them to proceed, we are in
trouble.
> > I believe that the success of IANA in doing this is the necessary condition
> > for progressing with the gTLD-MoU. In other words, the next battle is the
> > recognition of IANA: if this doesn't happen, our chances to be successful
> > are very low.
> >
> I agree. I raised this privately to the IAB in early Feb, and
> publically on the IETF list in March. The IAB needs to make a formal
> delegation of support to IANA, and see whether that is challenged.
>
> Note that the IANA GP response specifically supports PAB/POC/CORE.
>
> It is time for POC to officially request a new gTLD from IANA, and IANA
> to officially say yes, and then CORE should start the servers rolling!
POC will be pretty tied up with meetings next week. But I will bring
it up.
> And I finally made time to read the final PAB response (I had commented
> on an earlier draft). Nice work, Kent! One of the best written
> responses!
Thanks. I put a lot of hours into it, but there were several people,
in addition to you, who sent very cogent comments. Also, you will note
that POC endorsed the PAB position.
-- Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html