% Either we need the root system and it must match the basic surety rules for % a critical infrastructure, or we just want to keep the fossil concept the % way it was designed 20 years ago. Why do you think this is an either/or proposition? % Then UN/ITU or private industry or a new % NGO or a new Gov technically and security certified type of operator is to % find, propose, test, and deploy another solution. I suggest them to read % carefully the very well crafted ICP-3 document. It correctly considers the % end of the single authoritative root file concept. And documents the way to % test new venues. Please provide a pointer to this ICP-3 document. UN/ITU, Private Industry, and NGO/Governments are -ALREADY- engaged in this process. % I am sorry to come again and again on this. I will do it until a special WG % is created or IETF transfers the concern to ITU. "special WG" - chartered in/under what jurisdiction? % The world wants a new network % approach, more equal, more secure, more stable, safer, more innovation % oriented, respectfull of national digital independance and sovereignty and % IS actually switching. % http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/08/technology/08divide.html?th=&pagewanted=print&position Then the "world" is getting what it wants. Is there a requirement to force the dismantling of an existing system first? If so, where is that requirement documented? Nothing is preventing -anyone- or -any group- from formulating, and promulgating their own naming constructs. % Today, every nations need and must be permited a strategy towards a % national and global secure cyberspace Nothing is preventing nations from proceeding with their stratagies towards a national and globally secure cyberspace. % IAB and IETF are to design and help % the implementation. Under what charter and funding model? % Or more simply, may be kill the real time root servers concept and review % the DNS as a non God centralized system? If there was nothing to protect % because there would be nothing, we would risk far less from there. Been there, done that. The TBDS project (circa 1999/2000) eliminated the requirement for an always on, fully connected mesh, with access to any external authoritative servers, be they root, tld, or anywhere else in the heirarchy. The upshot was that the DNS is -fully- placed in the hands of the endusers. We did not replace one centralized service with another or even a collection of centralized services, e.g. no ICANN, no IANA, no nation state, no private industry, no NGO or multinational treaty organization. It was -COMPLETELY- up to the endusers. % Then? We wait for the adoption by vendors/users of the new world order while we maintain, augment, and evolve the existing, working system so as to facilitate a near-zero impact on the people, organizations, and nations that have come to depend on the system we have built. % jfc --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).