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 <baptista@publicroot.org>
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:54 PM, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Joe Baptista <baptista@publicroot.org> 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?
<snip>
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.icann...
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.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org