Review of the DNS Root Server Advisory Committee
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
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--
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. Don't confuse the root server operators with the ICANN RSSAC. There might be some overlap but the second group is an ICANN body. jaap
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
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
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
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
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
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 <roberto@icann.org> 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<http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlar%0Age-lists.ic...>
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.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
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! 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.
<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.
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. <snip> -- Cheers, McTim
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
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
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
participants (10)
-
Derek Smythe -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jaap Akkerhuis -
JFC Morfin -
Joe Baptista -
John R. Levine -
Karl Auerbach -
McTim -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Roberto Gaetano