Danny, Thank you for raising this point. This is a true @large issue. I fully share your concerns. I have a problem with the current Draft. In April 6th "After Action Report" it is said that Staff released a new Draft on April 5th? The only plan, I have is Nov 27th, 2007. To be productive it would be better to discuss on its basis. However, you tend to see the things as an operations auditor - comparintg what has been done with what have been said. I have a more @large oriented point of view, tending to understand from ICANN experience what can be good for me, and how to advise ICANN from my own, and other @larges' point of view. I see three levels of possible comments (after I saw the April 5th revised Draft). - what has been done well/wrong and the experience from it - how could the current system be improved - what are the lessons for my own operations as a zone Registry manager. and one general strategic review: confirming my best architecture model and how to adapt my operations and help ICANN adapting. That general comment is that I do not think the current DNS set-up is optimal in the best interest of users and of the network, moreover in the context of the digital convergence and of the semantic emergence. This is something that france@large has reviewed for years. We identified that it was necessary to consider the issue in its globality. This is why we discussed with Vint Cerf (as the Chair of the IETF/WG-IDNABIS) and John Klensin and came to the understanding I reported about the IDNA and the ML-DNS work. We (@large) obviously are in 2008 a situation very similar to the 1986 situation the IETF founders were. They gathered to decide how they would develop and operate their machine. We have to gather to decide how we will operate and extend our systems. The ML-DNS we will come out with will be very similar with the DNS, and at the same time it could be very different. As documented by ICANN a seven years ago. jfc. At 21:54 29/05/2008, Danny Younger wrote:

Jefsey,

Of greater concern to me than the prospect of ALAC registry management is the current status of the ICANN Registry failover project -- see http://www.icann.org/registries/failover/registry-failover-30apr08.pdf

See also the After Action Report for the gTLD Registry Failover Exercise conducted 24-25 January 2008http://www.icann.org/registries/failover/icann-aar-06apr08.pdf

See also the SSAC Review of the above at http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac031.pdf

By the way, on one of the slides from the first presentation (page 13) there is a bullet point that states: "Recognition that current process is not sufficient to reconstitute a registry". This is a somewhat unsettling remark (unless I am misunderstanding it).

Another troubling statement from the After Action report: "The draft ICANN gTLD Registry Failover Plan provides strategic guidance, but (by design) lacks the detailed internal ICANN event-specific steps for implementation."

One has to hope that behind-the-scenes ICANN is reasonably on top of their responsibilities... the last thing that we need is a loss of confidence in the provisioning of DNS services.