On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 05:28:52AM -0500, Steve Crocker wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2009, at 11:30 PM, John R. Levine wrote: > > >I actually don't think we have any serious disagreement here. > >ICANN's management of the root zone is cautious for all sorts of > >reasons, and as you note the root server operators have no plans to > >say no to what ICANN offers them. It's always been clear that one > >reason is that the consequences if any of the root servers felt > >unable or unwilling to accept ICANN's root would be too awful to > >contemplate, so it'll never happen. > > No, it's not too awful to contemplate. Far from it. As a matter of > prudent planning, consideration of the consequences of a root operator > refusing to update the root zone is definitely something that ought to > be part of contingency and disaster planning. > > Steve > > _______________________________________________ actually, from a stability, resiliency and surviabily point of view (or just call it contingency and disaster planning) one should seriously look at -ALL- the actors who have an operational role in the creation and publication of the root zone. In general, the root operators have a fairly long track record of ensuring the zone gets there. Some operators are newer at the task than others, some of the other actors are just on their first decade of service. any credible contingency and disaster planning would have to include -ALL- of the operational actors in a coordinated response, not something driven by one of them. IMHO of course. -- --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). _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf