On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:47:38AM -0500, Greg Shatan wrote:
I think the essay referenced below is of equal interest to our Working Group.
I agree it's of interest, and in two related but different ways. First, the essay keeps talking about the authority over the root zone, but points out (more subtly than I'm about to, predictably) how absurd a notion that really is. On the _Inter_net, nobody is really in charge, because the various networks could, if they wanted to, act independently to throw over whatever arrangement others might establish. The IANA root is the authoritative root zone because everyone uses it. It would be expensive and difficult to change that, but it is technically possible. Perhaps that fact is part of why I am rather less worried than some others seem to be about "accountability" if IANA: if IANA as such really did screw up badly, I think it would be replaced in a matter of weeks by ISPs all over the Internet (or, just as likely, by the root server operators acting in rough consensus). It would have to be a _pretty bad_ screw-up, on the order of "Dr Evil takes over the root" or "Rogue group takes over offices in LA and forces changed root zone" or something like that -- real science-fiction stuff. The point is that the loose coupling and multi-party operation of the DNS makes it quite hard to change, but not that hard to get rid of a truly malign actor. Second, the essay speaks of ICANN in a unitary way. If discussion so far is any guide, I think that illustrates what a troublesome way of talking that is. We need to attend to the difference between ICANN as such and the IANA functions it performs on behalf of the names community. It is the latter that is _our_ problem (as opposed to CCWG-accountability). Otherwise, we risk pulling in a number of issues that would indeed affect the root zone, but that are not IANA problems properly construed. Thanks for the link! Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com