Discuss mailing list

["Hanselka, Alex" <alex AT hanselka.name>]

Personally, I think if any TLD is used by ANY domains, perhaps other than
the required ones, it should be kept around.  Clearly in this case it is a
bit different, but I thought I should at least mention that.

Just because it is only used by 2-3 domains doesn't mean it should just go
away.

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Hospedaje Web y Servidores Dedicados <
ventas AT dedicados.com.mx> wrote:

> i can offer one of my servers to host a Tier1 tld, but if the zone is not
> used or only by 2-3 domains, then i think we need to drop it and use on
> another .tld
>
> About t1 admins, what about providing email+skype+phone in case of an
> emergency, not to me, to other t1 admins, so if something fails they can
> contact him not only via "list" or "irc".
>
> Just a suggestion.
>
>
>
>
> Ing. Alejandro M.
> Hospedaje Web y Servidores Dedicados
> http://www.dedicados.com.mx
> ------
> correo / msn: ventas AT dedicados.com.mx
> skype: dedicados
> ------
>
> El 20/09/2011 11:25 a.m., Jeff Taylor escribió:
>
>  For what its worth, I added testing of the T1 servers to the T2 status
>> page because of this very reason... I know that NS3 (which carried bzh) has
>> been failing for some time, but I've been heavily involved with an event 
>> for
>> the past few weeks, so I don't know exactly how long its been failing.  
>> With
>> the server status being recorded now, we'll have a record of each server's
>> performance, and can see exactly how long problems have been happening.
>>
>> As for what is considered an appropriate time period... The T1 servers are
>> rather critical to operations, so its important that admins keep in contact
>> with each other.  I can't see any possible way that a server would just
>> suddenly stop responding to all other OpenNic zones, yet continue serving
>> the admin's own zone -- unless the OpenNic zones had been purposely 
>> removed.
>>  From my point of view, if a T1 server is failing for more than a week and
>> the admin has not responded that he is aware of the problem, or at least
>> notified others that he was going on vacation, it shows a lack of
>> responsibility.  From my own experience, I was in a major collision three
>> years ago, laid up in ICU for a few days, then finally able to come home
>> with a shattered leg.  Even through all that, I managed to have someone
>> bring me a laptop when I got home so I could check that everything was 
>> still
>> working and let everyone know I wasn't dead.  I know I'm anal about keeping
>> my own systems running, but I don't think its wrong to expect at least
>> periodic inspections of their servers from other admins.
>>
>> And last, for the option of another admin picking up the zone... We've had
>> TLDs abandoned before.  We are in a great position now to have many parts 
>> of
>> OpenNic configured to automatically route around problems like this.  Every
>> one of the DNS servers that slave all the zones will have a copy of the
>> latest zone file for BZH, which gives us all the needed info to allow 
>> anyone
>> else to pick it up.  If anyone has an interest in this, by all means please
>> speak up before the voting closes on the issue!
>>
>>
>> On 09/20/2011 09:45 AM, Zach Gibbens wrote:
>>
>>> We did our due diligence, they metioned it themselves, they have some
>>> involvement with the group trying to get it into ICANN, they saw this as a
>>> way to
>>> Promote the idea with ICANN dragging their feet for a long time (I think
>>> I recall somebody saying years, but not too sure on that)
>>> Their plans were for ICANN approval in the long run, so that wouldn't
>>> have been much of an issue
>>>
>>> How long do we have to talk about a thread till somebody gets the
>>> message, reads it and fixes it, and how long does it take to read it and
>>> say,
>>> whoops your right, it's broken, I'll fix it ASAP, how long has it been
>>> down, over 5 days, that might be premature, I'd be thinking 7-10 (for a 
>>> vote
>>> to remove to start) but when the vote closes in 15 days (10 for the vote, 
>>> 5
>>> for this thread) is that enough time, if we waited for 60 days, why was 
>>> that
>>> enough time
>>>
>>> it looks poorly on the group to have servers that don't respond, looks
>>> poorly to have to change /etc/resolv.conf (or equavilant) every so often,
>>> becuase a server is offline or b0rked.
>>> I honestly think we should have this as a policy, if your server is
>>> unresponsive for one week, and an admin is unresponsive for one week, 
>>> (maybe
>>> a week is too long, maybe it's too short) we should have that be the
>>> immidate reason to drop a server, and talk about hosting it on another 
>>> tier1
>>> or dropping it.
>>>
>>> Is there a Tier 1 op that'd rather carry it than drop it?
>>>
>>>  ______________________________**_________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss AT lists.opennicproject.**org <discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org>
>> http://lists.darkdna.net/**mailman/listinfo/discuss<http://lists.darkdna.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
>>
>>  ______________________________**_________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss AT lists.opennicproject.**org <discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org>
> http://lists.darkdna.net/**mailman/listinfo/discuss<http://lists.darkdna.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
>