Mailing Lists
[ALAC] Review of the DNS Root Server Advisory Committee
Posted February 25th, 2009 by Mailing list user
http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/rssac/
The Westlake report on RSSAC has just been published. It is quite hard, in
that it points out that RSSAC is essentially unaccountable to the ICANN
community, and that it does not pro-actively advise on root server related
issues, or potential ones.
Among the recommendations are a request that RSSAC holds its meetings
together with ICANN ones, and to enlarge the AC to include representatives
from ASO, GNSO, ccNSO, GAC and ALAC.
Obviously, the recommendations should be discussed, but the gist of the
report is right on target.
Patrick
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
[At-Large] Review of the DNS Root Server Advisory Committee
> Among the recommendations are a request that RSSAC holds its meetings
> together with ICANN ones, and to enlarge the AC to include representatives
> from ASO, GNSO, ccNSO, GAC and ALAC.
But why would the root server operators want to do that? The last thing
they need is more time wasting meetings with ICANN bureaucrats. They've
got networks to run.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] Review of the DNS Root Server Advisory Committee
There is much history here - the root server operators, or rather the
operators of the primary system of root servers (there are other systems
of root servers) have never pledged allegiance to ICANN. Rather they
run their systems as their own systems, set their own rules, adopt their
own procedures.
In a way this has been good because those folks who are doing this have
done a spectacular job.
Indeed they once acted in a way that pretty much saved the net when
ICANN was (and perhaps still is) trapped in stasis: Once upon a time
there but 12 (or 13) actual root servers. Their geographic
distribution was causing political consternation and they were being
overloaded. And they were a very obvious point of attack on the net.
There is a routing technology called Anycast. While I was at Cisco
several of us talked about Anycast for DNS servers - and about actual
deployments showing proof-of-concept at lower levels of the DNS
hierarchy. We (at Cisco) just talked, but we did mention the idea to
ICANN, perhaps not formally. ICANN didn't even respond.
But a couple of root server operators - most notably the F server folks
at ISC - picked up their tools and started deploying anycast servers.
Today they have a constellation of well over 100 clones of the F root,
all working very well.
We owe these root server folks a great debt of gratitude.
But on the other hand, there needs to be some formality of obligation.
There needs to be some constraint that keeps the root server operators
from giving into financial pressures and doing bad things.
I wrote up a note on this several years ago -
http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000192.html - The interesting
part for this discussion is down a couple of screens, starting with the
line "And finally - what should be the terms in those agreements?"
I refined that list of obligations a bit further in a note I wrote about
what I thought should be ICANN's application form for a new TLD -
http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000324.html
There is an agreement now between ICANN and ISC for the F root server.
But is is very much a contract that says "don't tread on me" rather than
one that defines obligatory service levels and imposes constraints
against using the advantages of the root server position for
discriminatory actions or as a vehicle to make piles of money.
--karl--
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] Review of the DNS Root Server Advisory Committee
Karl Auerbach wrote:
> There is much history here - the root server operators, or rather the
> operators of the primary system of root servers (there are other
> systems of root servers) have never pledged allegiance to ICANN.
> Rather they run their systems as their own systems, set their own
> rules, adopt their own procedures.
>
> In a way this has been good because those folks who are doing this
> have done a spectacular job.
I appreciate the history but am trying to understand how it guides the
present situation. Westlake wants ICANN (and its various constituencies)
far more deeply involved in the root servers -- yet your history
suggests that their independence has served RSAC well.
It is reasonable than an ICANN that would be involved with TLDs and IPV6
would also have a hand in the root servers. But based on what you and
others have said, it seems like Westlake is recommending substantial
repair to something that isn't broken. Furthermore, ICANN -- including
ALAC -- have little to teach RSAC about transparency and accountability.
> But on the other hand, there needs to be some formality of obligation.
> There needs to be some constraint that keeps the root server operators
> from giving into financial pressures and doing bad things.
So... what is the useful recommendation moving forward? Is the status
quo not a viable option, considering the difficulty with which any
worthy changes would be implemented? Given to their own processes, Karl
describes that, when confronted with challenges, the RSAC has tended to
do the right thing. Is that only by chance? Or perhaps... in their
opacity they have developed a reasonable process for good judgement.
Indeed, based on what's been said maybe RSAC has something to teach
ICANN as well.
- Evan
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[ALAC] [At-Large] Review of the DNS Root Server Advisory Committ
Karl Auerbach wrote:
> There is much history here - the root server operators, or rather the
> operators of the primary system of root servers (there are other
> systems of root servers) have never pledged allegiance to ICANN.
> Rather they run their systems as their own systems, set their own
> rules, adopt their own procedures.
>
> In a way this has been good because those folks who are doing this
> have done a spectacular job.
I appreciate the history but am trying to understand how it guides the
present situation. Westlake wants ICANN (and its various constituencies)
far more deeply involved in the root servers -- yet your history
suggests that their independence has served RSAC well.
It is reasonable than an ICANN that would be involved with TLDs and IPV6
would also have a hand in the root servers. But based on what you and
others have said, it seems like Westlake is recommending substantial
repair to something that isn't broken. Furthermore, ICANN -- including
ALAC -- have little to teach RSAC about transparency and accountability.
> But on the other hand, there needs to be some formality of obligation.
> There needs to be some constraint that keeps the root server operators
> from giving into financial pressures and doing bad things.
So... what is the useful recommendation moving forward? Is the status
quo not a viable option, considering the difficulty with which any
worthy changes would be implemented? Given to their own processes, Karl
describes that, when confronted with challenges, the RSAC has tended to
do the right thing. Is that only by chance? Or perhaps... in their
opacity they have developed a reasonable process for good judgement.
Indeed, based on what's been said maybe RSAC has something to teach
ICANN as well.
- Evan
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
[At-Large] Review of the DNS Root Server Advisory Committee
May I repeat what Jaap has already said, do not confuse the root server
operators with RSSAC.
What is being reviewed by Westlake is RSSAC, not the root server operators
community. A higher involvment of the internet community in RSSAC does not
mean that different constituencies are going to interfere with root
operations, in much the same way to have liaisons with the GAC does not mean
interference with how the governments operate.
At least, this is how I understand it.
Cheers,
Roberto
> -----Original Message-----
> From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf
> Of Evan Leibovitch
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:43
> To: At-Large Worldwide
> Cc: At-Large Worldwide
> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Review of the DNS Root Server
> Advisory Committee
>
> Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > There is much history here - the root server operators, or
> rather the
> > operators of the primary system of root servers (there are other
> > systems of root servers) have never pledged allegiance to ICANN.
> > Rather they run their systems as their own systems, set their own
> > rules, adopt their own procedures.
> >
> > In a way this has been good because those folks who are doing this
> > have done a spectacular job.
> I appreciate the history but am trying to understand how it
> guides the present situation. Westlake wants ICANN (and its
> various constituencies) far more deeply involved in the root
> servers -- yet your history suggests that their independence
> has served RSAC well.
>
> It is reasonable than an ICANN that would be involved with
> TLDs and IPV6 would also have a hand in the root servers. But
> based on what you and others have said, it seems like
> Westlake is recommending substantial repair to something that
> isn't broken. Furthermore, ICANN -- including ALAC -- have
> little to teach RSAC about transparency and accountability.
>
> > But on the other hand, there needs to be some formality of
> obligation.
> > There needs to be some constraint that keeps the root
> server operators
> > from giving into financial pressures and doing bad things.
>
> So... what is the useful recommendation moving forward? Is
> the status quo not a viable option, considering the
> difficulty with which any worthy changes would be
> implemented? Given to their own processes, Karl describes
> that, when confronted with challenges, the RSAC has tended to
> do the right thing. Is that only by chance? Or perhaps... in
> their opacity they have developed a reasonable process for
> good judgement.
>
> Indeed, based on what's been said maybe RSAC has something to
> teach ICANN as well.
>
> - Evan
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlar
ge-lists.icann.org
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
____________
Virus checked by G DATA AntiVirus
Version: AVF 19.276 from 25.02.2009
Virus news: www.antiviruslab.com
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[ALAC] [At-Large] Review of the DNS Root Server Advisory Committ
May I repeat what Jaap has already said, do not confuse the root server
operators with RSSAC.
What is being reviewed by Westlake is RSSAC, not the root server operators
community. A higher involvment of the internet community in RSSAC does not
mean that different constituencies are going to interfere with root
operations, in much the same way to have liaisons with the GAC does not mean
interference with how the governments operate.
At least, this is how I understand it.
Cheers,
Roberto
[At-Large] Review of the DNS Root Server Advisory Committee
People please - stop with the bull shit. This has been covered time and
time again. The root server operators are a clan of 13 root operators who I
like to call the 113 ugly root sisters. They perform a voluntary service to
the united states government - but have no contracts with any branch of the
united states government.
I would also include Bill Manning in the clan. He used to run a root - but
stopped. I think there is still some traffic to that root so I would
include him as a legacy root operator as well. He could really screw them
up if he got angry. But I digress.
In any case there just 13 fellows who we can consider the gods of the
Internet. What they see the users of the Internet sees. This however is
not a monopoly. Just bad programming. Since it is easy to relocate root
authority.
They as a group are ultimately the people who run the Internet - not ICANN.
They are not in any way accountable to anyone. I think a handful have
contracts with ICANN. Most do not. So they are not accountable to anyone.
If the 13 ugly root sisters chose to elope and leave ICANN then ICANN is
finished. Literally. It won't come to that I'm sure, and if it does I
suspect it will be well deserved. The people running these roots are
VeriSign, USC-ISI, Cogent, UMD, NASA-ARC, ISC, DOD-NIC, ARL, Autonomica,
RIPE, ICANN and WIDE.
To the root operators the RSSAC is an inconvenience they have been forced to
tolerate because of their connections to the U.S. Government. The purpose
of the RSSAC is an attempt to seem accountable to the community. Its not
either contractually or legally obligated. But the RSSAC make it possible
for the root operators to make it look like they are - accountable. The
usual ICANN smoke and mirror tricks abound.
One thing I am disappointed with is that there has never been an audit of
these root volunteers and what they do with the data they collect vis a vis
their queries. Thats powerful intelligence for marketing and Intel.
cheers
joe baptista
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> May I repeat what Jaap has already said, do not confuse the root server
> operators with RSSAC.
> What is being reviewed by Westlake is RSSAC, not the root server operators
> community. A higher involvment of the internet community in RSSAC does not
> mean that different constituencies are going to interfere with root
> operations, in much the same way to have liaisons with the GAC does not
> mean
> interference with how the governments operate.
> At least, this is how I understand it.
> Cheers,
> Roberto
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf
> > Of Evan Leibovitch
> > Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:43
> > To: At-Large Worldwide
> > Cc: At-Large Worldwide
> > Subject: Re: [At-Large] Review of the DNS Root Server
> > Advisory Committee
> >
> > Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > > There is much history here - the root server operators, or
> > rather the
> > > operators of the primary system of root servers (there are other
> > > systems of root servers) have never pledged allegiance to ICANN.
> > > Rather they run their systems as their own systems, set their own
> > > rules, adopt their own procedures.
> > >
> > > In a way this has been good because those folks who are doing this
> > > have done a spectacular job.
> > I appreciate the history but am trying to understand how it
> > guides the present situation. Westlake wants ICANN (and its
> > various constituencies) far more deeply involved in the root
> > servers -- yet your history suggests that their independence
> > has served RSAC well.
> >
> > It is reasonable than an ICANN that would be involved with
> > TLDs and IPV6 would also have a hand in the root servers. But
> > based on what you and others have said, it seems like
> > Westlake is recommending substantial repair to something that
> > isn't broken. Furthermore, ICANN -- including ALAC -- have
> > little to teach RSAC about transparency and accountability.
> >
> > > But on the other hand, there needs to be some formality of
> > obligation.
> > > There needs to be some constraint that keeps the root
> > server operators
> > > from giving into financial pressures and doing bad things.
> >
> > So... what is the useful recommendation moving forward? Is
> > the status quo not a viable option, considering the
> > difficulty with which any worthy changes would be
> > implemented? Given to their own processes, Karl describes
> > that, when confronted with challenges, the RSAC has tended to
> > do the right thing. Is that only by chance? Or perhaps... in
> > their opacity they have developed a reasonable process for
> > good judgement.
> >
> > Indeed, based on what's been said maybe RSAC has something to
> > teach ICANN as well.
> >
> > - Evan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > At-Large mailing list
> > At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlar
> ge-lists.icann.org
> >
> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>
> ____________
> Virus checked by G DATA AntiVirus
> Version: AVF 19.276 from 25.02.2009
> Virus news: www.antiviruslab.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
--
Joe Baptista
www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative &
Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] Review of the DNS Root Server Advisory Committee
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Joe Baptista wrote:
> People please - stop with the bull shit. This has been covered time and
> time again. The root server operators are a clan of 13 root operators who I
> like to call the 113 ugly root sisters.
Now THIS is BS!
They perform a voluntary service to
> the united states government
To Internet Users actually.
- but have no contracts with any branch of the
> united states government.
Except of course, for NASA, DOD, etc.
>
>
> In any case there just 13 fellows who we can consider the gods of the
> Internet.
Oh please this is the thickest BS ever.
> What they see the users of the Internet sees.
as it should be.
>
> They as a group are ultimately the people who run the Internet - not ICANN.
smelly BS, as you know, no one entity or group "runs" the Internet.
> They are not in any way accountable to anyone.
They all have shareholders/Boards of Directors/other stakeholders that
they are accountable to.
I think a handful have
> contracts with ICANN. Most do not. So they are not accountable to anyone.
as above, most may not be accountable to ICANN, but if they were, you
and your fellow ICANN haters would, no doubt, object strenuously to
such an arrangement.
>
> If the 13 ugly root sisters chose to elope and leave ICANN then ICANN is
> finished.
rubbish.
--
Cheers,
McTim
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] Review of the DNS Root Server Advisory Committee
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:54 PM, McTim wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Joe Baptista
> wrote:
> > People please - stop with the bull shit. This has been covered time and
> > time again. The root server operators are a clan of 13 root operators
> who I
> > like to call the 113 ugly root sisters.
>
> Now THIS is BS!
the 113 is a type. its 13 root operators. Whats the bull shit in that.
What do you mean. Or do you not have an argument to support your claim?
>
>
> They perform a voluntary service to
> > the united states government
>
> To Internet Users actually.
NO. The service thats performed is to the U.S. government through IANA.
Thats the historical origin of the 13 ugly sisters.
>
>
> - but have no contracts with any branch of the
> > united states government.
>
> Except of course, for NASA, DOD, etc.
Yes - the two U.S. roots. Again - no contracts exist, except for a few. I
understand Vixie has one with ICANN now. But generally there are no
contracts. Many of these organizations have a long history with the U.S.
government and there have been contracts on other matters that have
benefited them financially in one way or another.
Can you provide any URLs: to contracts?
>
>
> >
>
> >
> > In any case there just 13 fellows who we can consider the gods of the
> > Internet.
>
> Oh please this is the thickest BS ever.
Why. If they turned off their root servers tomorrow the world would known
quickly enough. Even if one of the 13 root server sisters rebel and publish
data that is not RFC 2826 compliant they would still be able to capture a
large market segment of user traffic. And in the worse case - technically
speaking one root can crash the internetwork or poison the cache in the name
of marketing.
Roots have a lot of power. Thats why I call them gods - small "g" gods that
is. There is a lot of power in being at the root of the internet. In short
the trust you put into the root depends on if you trust the 13 ugly
sisters. I don't. ICANN is having a show down with the U.S. government
this year and the issue will come down to one single matter. What roots are
loyal to the U.S. government and which ones end up in the ICANN ranks.
Incidentally I include in the 13 Bill Manning. Even though he no longer
runs a root he still gets a lot of legacy root traffic from resolvers with
the original bind hard coded legacy cache. That gives Bill Manning a lot
of power.
>
>
>
> > What they see the users of the Internet sees.
>
> as it should be.
But its not anymore is it? There are many roots currently in operation
world wide today including the Arabic and China National TLD systems. Thats
well over 40% drop in market share. China now see a different internet
(root) and so does some of the middle east.
However this lose in market share is more a reflection on ICANNs failures
and not that of root operators.
>
> >
> > They as a group are ultimately the people who run the Internet - not
> ICANN.
>
> smelly BS, as you know, no one entity or group "runs" the Internet.
Correct. But they are the single point of failure - they are the DNS gods.
Internet users trust them as the root of any transaction initiated by our
systems. Thats a lot of power.
>
>
> > They are not in any way accountable to anyone.
>
> They all have shareholders/Boards of Directors/other stakeholders that
> they are accountable to.
I'm sure they do. I'm sure some of them have stakeholders galore. But
thats not the issue - the issue is can they be trusted and are they
accountable to me - the internet user? I don't think they are accountable
to anyone but themselves and I don't trust them. Some of you may disagree
with me.
In any case my point is made - from a technical point of view and
specifically from the perspective of the DNS - the 13 ugly root sisters in
fact control the Infrastructure that ICANN pretends to run.
>
>
> I think a handful have
> > contracts with ICANN. Most do not. So they are not accountable to
> anyone.
>
> as above, most may not be accountable to ICANN, but if they were, you
> and your fellow ICANN haters would, no doubt, object strenuously to
> such an arrangement.
This discussion has nothing to do with ICANN haters. It is simply to
acknowledge the facts and move on. The problem I find with discussions here
that that there are so many people who have no understanding of the history
or control points in the DNS.
I thank you for acknowledging the fact that most root operators are not
accountable to ICANN. I agree and I support that. They are accountable to
the U.S. Government. And that is where - I would hope, if they are
honorable people - they would be accountable to.
Let us not forget that the roots were put in place to satisfy a DARPA or
ARPA contracts - irrespective of the fact that they were volunteers.
Remember all these people were involved from the beginning of the creation
of the Internet. They were a small community - a small team. No one at the
time considered contracts or the legalities involved in root service.
So I would hope that as the internet's legacy founding roots these operators
will remain loyal to the party responsible for the root - being the U.S.
Government.
But I suspect not all will be loyal.
> >
> > If the 13 ugly root sisters chose to elope and leave ICANN then ICANN is
> > finished.
>
> rubbish.
You obviously don't know the history here. Its possible they will. They
have eloped in the past. Are you forgetting the time Jon Postel and Paul
Vixie high jacked the root. The MIBH paid them a visit. They switched the
root back to A.root-servers - and the incident was explained off as an
unauthorized experiment.
So its not rubbish. Its a concern with a history.
cheers
joe baptista
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
--
Joe Baptista
www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative &
Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] Review of the DNS Root Server Advisory Committee
Joe,something about ICANNers. They unilaterally see stability through the
ICANN system. And like every of us they want stability. The confusion is
over the Root Server System and the Root itself. So the question you only
have to ask to know the kind of stablity people refer too is: "what would
happen if the RSS would stop operating 5 minutes from now and for ever?".
This would help us all to understand there are two kinds of stability
involved:
- the strategic US Internet (capital I) stability, where the RSS is a
governance tool to protect the NTIA Root exclusion against the Virtual Real
Root inclusion.
- the stability of the global internet (non-capital i) which is the proper
support of the Virtual Real Root (meaning all the existing public and
private TLDs people do actually use on an every day basis).
The problem is that ICANNers supports ICANN for a wrong good ICANN reason.
Today ICANN is doing the best they can in the confusion created by the lack
of proper response by the IETF to their call for reducing this root divide
(their ICP-3 document, unfortunately no one takes care of [I did it for a 2
very rewarding years experience]).
The reason why the IETF did not answer the call has been very well
documented by IAB in its RFC 3869: the Internet R&D needs the funding of the
Governments to be technologically independent from the pressures of its
commercial sponsors. The response of the US Government has been very clear
in Tunis :
- (1) the legacy Internet is American, don't touch it!
- (2) Google and the US industry are the funding of the legacy Internet
technology maintenance (IETF is to make it work better, not to make it
evoluate)
So, the world adapted.
- Chinese started their own DNS, so did others.
- UK tried to play on the same language to help their e-commerce
- Australia invaded the ICANN DNS related structure
- Other governements which are focussed on the Governance of the Internet
have not yet understood/been able to work the "adminance" (the technical
administration governance). It was to be delt with through "enhanced
cooperations". The USG delayed their study, as it would have forced them to
stop the JPA.
- The only option left for the NGUI (non governmental users of the
Internet), the lead users who have the capacity, the competence, and the
dedication to adapt their internet to their needs (we also call the
@larges), was also to organise and take the lead in Internet R&D.
This is currently happening:
- the TLDA is trying to formalise a virtual real root systemic
- there is the opportunity of the Intersem (Semantic and Multilingual
International Network) that results from the digital convergence and the
semantic emergence - we see it in particular more and more active work on it
(even acknowledged at the IETF/WG/IDNABIS debate).
- I started the iucg@ietf.org mailing list and its
http://iucg.orgsupporting site and wiki to host the non-commercial
users contributing
technological effort to the IETF in order to avoid a split if they joined
the ISG and the ITU.
- the paradigmatic change is slowly coming to fruition, making more and more
clear that the WSIS premises of a "people centered" information society,
digital ecosystem, and therefore internet were the right global multilateral
approach, rather than the local unilateral US network centric doctrine.
All these things are not in opposition. They only reflect the more complex
nature of what was called the "Internet internationalization" in the ICANN
preparatory days. This is exactly the nature of the debate of this year
about the ICANN evolution.
If we want to fail: it is very easy. We just have not to consider the
technical reality of the network and be childish about our strategic
motivations.
In any case we can be certain of something: the internet has its own ecology
which already shown it is much more powerfull than the most stuborn people.
All what opposition to the network ecology tide can do is to make things
tougher and slower for the users. Wasting many bucks for all to permit a few
to make a few bucks more.
jfc
2009/2/27 Joe Baptista
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:54 PM, McTim wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Joe Baptista
> > wrote:
> > > People please - stop with the bull shit. This has been covered time
> and
> > > time again. The root server operators are a clan of 13 root operators
> > who I
> > > like to call the 113 ugly root sisters.
> >
> > Now THIS is BS!
>
>
> the 113 is a type. its 13 root operators. Whats the bull shit in that.
> What do you mean. Or do you not have an argument to support your claim?
>
> >
> >
> > They perform a voluntary service to
> > > the united states government
> >
> > To Internet Users actually.
>
>
> NO. The service thats performed is to the U.S. government through IANA.
> Thats the historical origin of the 13 ugly sisters.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > - but have no contracts with any branch of the
> > > united states government.
> >
> > Except of course, for NASA, DOD, etc.
>
>
> Yes - the two U.S. roots. Again - no contracts exist, except for a few. I
> understand Vixie has one with ICANN now. But generally there are no
> contracts. Many of these organizations have a long history with the U.S.
> government and there have been contracts on other matters that have
> benefited them financially in one way or another.
>
> Can you provide any URLs: to contracts?
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > In any case there just 13 fellows who we can consider the gods of the
> > > Internet.
> >
> > Oh please this is the thickest BS ever.
>
>
> Why. If they turned off their root servers tomorrow the world would known
> quickly enough. Even if one of the 13 root server sisters rebel and
> publish
> data that is not RFC 2826 compliant they would still be able to capture a
> large market segment of user traffic. And in the worse case - technically
> speaking one root can crash the internetwork or poison the cache in the
> name
> of marketing.
>
> Roots have a lot of power. Thats why I call them gods - small "g" gods
> that
> is. There is a lot of power in being at the root of the internet. In
> short
> the trust you put into the root depends on if you trust the 13 ugly
> sisters. I don't. ICANN is having a show down with the U.S. government
> this year and the issue will come down to one single matter. What roots
> are
> loyal to the U.S. government and which ones end up in the ICANN ranks.
>
> Incidentally I include in the 13 Bill Manning. Even though he no longer
> runs a root he still gets a lot of legacy root traffic from resolvers with
> the original bind hard coded legacy cache. That gives Bill Manning a lot
> of power.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > What they see the users of the Internet sees.
> >
> > as it should be.
>
>
> But its not anymore is it? There are many roots currently in operation
> world wide today including the Arabic and China National TLD systems.
> Thats
> well over 40% drop in market share. China now see a different internet
> (root) and so does some of the middle east.
>
> However this lose in market share is more a reflection on ICANNs failures
> and not that of root operators.
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > They as a group are ultimately the people who run the Internet - not
> > ICANN.
> >
> > smelly BS, as you know, no one entity or group "runs" the Internet.
>
>
> Correct. But they are the single point of failure - they are the DNS gods.
> Internet users trust them as the root of any transaction initiated by our
> systems. Thats a lot of power.
>
>
> >
> >
> > > They are not in any way accountable to anyone.
> >
> > They all have shareholders/Boards of Directors/other stakeholders that
> > they are accountable to.
>
>
> I'm sure they do. I'm sure some of them have stakeholders galore. But
> thats not the issue - the issue is can they be trusted and are they
> accountable to me - the internet user? I don't think they are accountable
> to anyone but themselves and I don't trust them. Some of you may disagree
> with me.
>
> In any case my point is made - from a technical point of view and
> specifically from the perspective of the DNS - the 13 ugly root sisters in
> fact control the Infrastructure that ICANN pretends to run.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > I think a handful have
> > > contracts with ICANN. Most do not. So they are not accountable to
> > anyone.
> >
> > as above, most may not be accountable to ICANN, but if they were, you
> > and your fellow ICANN haters would, no doubt, object strenuously to
> > such an arrangement.
>
>
> This discussion has nothing to do with ICANN haters. It is simply to
> acknowledge the facts and move on. The problem I find with discussions
> here
> that that there are so many people who have no understanding of the history
> or control points in the DNS.
>
> I thank you for acknowledging the fact that most root operators are not
> accountable to ICANN. I agree and I support that. They are accountable to
> the U.S. Government. And that is where - I would hope, if they are
> honorable people - they would be accountable to.
>
> Let us not forget that the roots were put in place to satisfy a DARPA or
> ARPA contracts - irrespective of the fact that they were volunteers.
> Remember all these people were involved from the beginning of the creation
> of the Internet. They were a small community - a small team. No one at
> the
> time considered contracts or the legalities involved in root service.
>
> So I would hope that as the internet's legacy founding roots these
> operators
> will remain loyal to the party responsible for the root - being the U.S.
> Government.
>
> But I suspect not all will be loyal.
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > If the 13 ugly root sisters chose to elope and leave ICANN then ICANN
> is
> > > finished.
> >
> > rubbish.
>
>
> You obviously don't know the history here. Its possible they will. They
> have eloped in the past. Are you forgetting the time Jon Postel and Paul
> Vixie high jacked the root. The MIBH paid them a visit. They switched the
> root back to A.root-servers - and the incident was explained off as an
> unauthorized experiment.
>
> So its not rubbish. Its a concern with a history.
>
> cheers
> joe baptista
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> >
> > McTim
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > At-Large mailing list
> > At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >
> >
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
> >
> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Joe Baptista
> www.publicroot.org
> PublicRoot Consortium
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative
> &
> Accountable to the Internet community @large.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
> Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] Review of the DNS Root Server Advisory Committee
Just a few thoughts.
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> Karl Auerbach wrote:
>> There is much history here - the root server operators, or rather the
>> operators of the primary system of root servers (there are other
>> systems of root servers) have never pledged allegiance to ICANN.
>> Rather they run their systems as their own systems, set their own
>> rules, adopt their own procedures.
>>
>> In a way this has been good because those folks who are doing this
>> have done a spectacular job.
> I appreciate the history but am trying to understand how it guides the
> present situation. Westlake wants ICANN (and its various
> constituencies) far more deeply involved in the root servers -- yet
> your history suggests that their independence has served RSAC well.
>
> It is reasonable than an ICANN that would be involved with TLDs and
> IPV6 would also have a hand in the root servers. But based on what you
> and others have said, it seems like Westlake is recommending
> substantial repair to something that isn't broken. Furthermore, ICANN
> -- including ALAC -- have little to teach RSAC about transparency and
> accountability.
Now, if that was the other way around ... yes!
>
>> But on the other hand, there needs to be some formality of
>> obligation. There needs to be some constraint that keeps the root
>> server operators from giving into financial pressures and doing bad
>> things.
>
> So... what is the useful recommendation moving forward? Is the status
> quo not a viable option, considering the difficulty with which any
> worthy changes would be implemented? Given to their own processes,
> Karl describes that, when confronted with challenges, the RSAC has
> tended to do the right thing. Is that only by chance? Or perhaps... in
> their opacity they have developed a reasonable process for good
> judgement.
>
> Indeed, based on what's been said maybe RSAC has something to teach
> ICANN as well.
I think we have to look at who is actually giving in to financial
pressures and whose models are based on financial means. About a month
ago we had quite a few posts on that very topic on in this self same list.
A good rule of thumb: If it isn't broken, don't try and fix it.
Derek
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] Review of the DNS Root Server Advisory Committee
Derek Smythe wrote, On 25/2/09 18:23:
> A good rule of thumb: If it isn't broken, don't try and fix it.
This very much depends how you define if something is broken or not. But
also, can something be broken and - in that case - how can we apply
preventive maintenance ?
I think the root server operators have done a very good job up to now,
if we forget about the Postel incident, but that was pre-ICANN.
It would make some sense that RSAC suggests a contingency or disaster
recovery plan for the root server operations. I am well aware that
each of the organizations running root servers do have one on their own,
or at least I would hope so. But we know that most of the organizations
running the root servers are vulnerable to politcal pressure, if only
because they directly or indirectly receive public money. So, what would
happen if it was the NTIA calling root server operators to instruct them
to point to a new root master, rather than Postel ? This was the whole
idea behind the now defunct ORSN project (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Root_Server_Network )
Even if the root server operators have done a good job, this is not a
reason for not interacting with the community. The lack of transparency
is often a major cause of distrust.
However honest and performing someone is, I would still be concerned to
sign blank cheques.
--
Patrick Vande Walle
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
[At-Large] Review of the DNS Root Server Advisory Committee
Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
> But we know that most of the organizations
> running the root servers are vulnerable to politcal pressure, if only
> because they directly or indirectly receive public money.
And yet, the state of the current operations indicates that such
pressure has not affected the generally smooth running of the root servers.
> Even if the root server operators have done a good job, this is not a reason for not interacting with the community.
If such interaction would distract the RSAC and politicize it, I would
consider that a good reason for resisting it.
> The lack of transparency is often a major cause of distrust.
>
May be. But effective performance and maintenance of focus more than
compensate for that.
- Evan
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org