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