<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] On the continuity instrument
- To: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] On the continuity instrument
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:31:29 -0500
I had missed that! It is indeed a very different thing that the DAG
requires, and in fact, BETTER than what the DAG requires of a buyer
is not found to take over the gTLD.
Alan
At 13/12/2010 07:02 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
2.11 ICANN and a new gTLD operator/registry should establish clear
continuity plans for maintaining the resolution of names in the DNS in
event of registry failure. These plans should be established in
coordination with any contingency measures adopted for ICANN as a whole.
It is interesting that the GAC notion of continuity is limited to
resolution, a requirement which could be met by simply freezing a
registry's zone file and ensuring that it does not expire, as was done
during the .ht failure. The cost of a freeze-and-republish-only mode
of continuity is fairly low, even for years of continuity.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|