[dns-wg] Followup to IANA TLD delegation problem

Jim,

We're happy to provide answers to these questions. Given that Monday is a
holiday in the US, may I suggest that we will provide answers to the
questions listed on Tuesday 31 May unless you or the WG indicate that more
time is needed for you to formulate the list?

Regards,

Doug

-- 
Doug Barton
General Manager, The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority


Jim Reid wrote:
> You'll all have seen the response from Doug Barton confirming that the
> technical problem has been fixed. It is now permitted to have multiple
> names for the same IP address in a TLD delegation from the root. That
> particular aspect of the discussion should be considered closed IMO
> because the problem has been resolved. However, there are some other
> things that I'd like the WG to consider and discuss. These concern the
> process and transparency issues that have been highlighted by this
> problem.
> 
> I wonder if the WG would like to pursue these?
> 
> In particular, I'd like the WG to consider if we should pursue answers
> to the following questions:
> 
> [1] What was the nature of the technical problem that prevented
> multiple names in for an IP address and how was it resolved?
> 
> [2] Why was there no announcement that this problem existed?
> 
> [3] Are safeguards now in place to prevent this sort of problem
> recurring?
> 
> [4] What procedures does IANA (or ICANN?) have to make sure that
> changes to the TLD delegation process or problems with that process
> are properly communicated to its stakeholders?
> 
> [5] Were those procedures followed for this incident? If not, why not?
> 
> If anyone here has more questions about this incident, please post
> them. If there's consensus in the WG that this matter needs further
> action, then we need to decide what the next steps, if any, should be.
> I'd welcome a discussion and comments.
> 
> It's now over to you, the list members....