<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <font face="Verdana">Alejandro,<br>
      <br>
      First of all, many thanks for your unusually even tempered
      response to my email :) .<br>
      <br>
    </font>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 07 August 2012 11:21 AM, Dr.
      Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AEAF1@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local"
      type="cite">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <style type="text/css" id="owaParaStyle"></style>
      <div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Courier New;color:
        #000000;font-size: 10pt;">
        Parminder,
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>let's assume you may be right. Then, do as engineers do:
          design and test.<br>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    I know you would consider it a fatal flaw, but unfortunately I must
    admit openly that I am not an engineer, and never ever had any kind
    of technical education whatsoever. May god save me!<br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AEAF1@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local"
      type="cite">
      <div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Courier New;color:
        #000000;font-size: 10pt;">
        <div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>The easiest way to support your view that " the number 13
            [root servers] can be expanded without much difficulty " is
            to get the best engineer in ITForChange</div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    I know you would consider this even more unbelievable, but there
    simply isnt any engineer here at IT for Change :( <br>
    <br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AEAF1@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local"
      type="cite">
      <div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Courier New;color:
        #000000;font-size: 10pt;">
        <div>
          <div> and start participating in the IETF with a proposal.
            Better if it takes into account previous explorations of the
            subject.</div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    Happy to be apprised of them. And as mentioned, if this indeed cant
    work (though David suggested that it isnt that difficult) the other
    option remains, reallocate at least 7 out of the 10 current root
    servers in the US to entities outside the US in a geographically and
    geo-political even/ just way. As a start, to keep from away from the
    spectre of strengthening statist controls, allocate them to the 4
    RIRs in Asia-Pacific, Africa, LA and Europe. After all RIPE, the RIR
    of North America, already runs a root server. Let others feel a bit
    equal too. And in this way the political demand of many Southern
    actors get assuaged to some extent. You are from Mexico, why
    shouldnt LACNIC, where your countrymen have some legitimate standing
    and say, run a root server, when RIPE does, and many private
    businesses do. <br>
    <br>
    What do you say to this proposal.<br>
    <br>
    parminder <br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AEAF1@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local"
      type="cite">
      <div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Courier New;color:
        #000000;font-size: 10pt;">
        <div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>All techno-political framing clouds will dispel.</div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>Alejandro Pisanty<br>
            <div><br>
              <div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px">
                <div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px"><span
                    class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse:
                    separate; font-size: medium; font-family: 'Times New
                    Roman'; "><span class="Apple-style-span"
                      style="font-family:arial; font-size:small"><font
                        face="Courier New" size="2">  
                      </font></span></span></div>
                <div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px"><span
                    class="Apple-style-span" style="widows:2;
                    text-transform:none; text-indent:0px;
                    letter-spacing:normal; border-collapse:separate;
                    font:medium 'Times New Roman'; white-space:normal;
                    orphans:2; color:rgb(0,0,0); word-spacing:0px"><span
                      class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;
                      font-size:small"><font face="Courier New" size="2">!
                        !! !!! !!!!</font></span></span></div>
                <div style="font-family:Tahoma; font-size:13px"><span
                    class="Apple-style-span" style="widows:2;
                    text-transform:none; text-indent:0px;
                    letter-spacing:normal; border-collapse:separate;
                    font:medium 'Times New Roman'; white-space:normal;
                    orphans:2; color:rgb(0,0,0); word-spacing:0px"><span
                      class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;
                      font-size:small"></span></span><span
                    class="Apple-style-span" style="widows:2;
                    text-transform:none; text-indent:0px;
                    letter-spacing:normal; border-collapse:separate;
                    font:medium 'Times New Roman'; white-space:normal;
                    orphans:2; color:rgb(0,0,0); word-spacing:0px"><span
                      class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;
                      font-size:small"><font face="Courier New" size="2">NEW

                        PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO</font></span></span></div>
                <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="widows:2;
                    text-transform:none; text-indent:0px;
                    letter-spacing:normal; border-collapse:separate;
                    font:medium 'Times New Roman'; white-space:normal;
                    orphans:2; color:rgb(0,0,0); word-spacing:0px"><span
                      class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;
                      font-size:small"></span></span> </p>
                <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="widows:2;
                    text-transform:none; text-indent:0px;
                    letter-spacing:normal; border-collapse:separate;
                    font:medium 'Times New Roman'; white-space:normal;
                    orphans:2; color:rgb(0,0,0); word-spacing:0px"><span
                      class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;
                      font-size:small"><font face="Courier New" size="2">+52-1-5541444475

                        FROM ABROAD </font></span></span></p>
                <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="widows:2;
                    text-transform:none; text-indent:0px;
                    letter-spacing:normal; border-collapse:separate;
                    font:medium 'Times New Roman'; white-space:normal;
                    orphans:2; color:rgb(0,0,0); word-spacing:0px"><span
                      class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;
                      font-size:small"><font face="Courier New" size="2">+525541444475

                        DESDE MÉXICO </font></span></span></p>
                <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="widows:2;
                    text-transform:none; text-indent:0px;
                    letter-spacing:normal; border-collapse:separate;
                    font:medium 'Times New Roman'; white-space:normal;
                    orphans:2; color:rgb(0,0,0); word-spacing:0px"><span
                      class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;
                      font-size:small"><font face="Courier New" size="2">SMS

                        +525541444475 <br>
                             Dr. Alejandro Pisanty<br>
                        UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF
                        Mexico<br>
                        <br>
                        Blog: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://pisanty.blogspot.com">http://pisanty.blogspot.com</a><br>
                        LinkedIn: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty">http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty</a><br>
                        Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
                        <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614">http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614</a><br>
                        Twitter: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://twitter.com/apisanty">http://twitter.com/apisanty</a><br>
                        ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico,
                        <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.isoc.org">http://www.isoc.org</a><br>
                        .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . </font></span></span></p>
              </div>
            </div>
            <div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
              font-size: 16px">
              <hr tabindex="-1">
              <div id="divRpF818628" style="direction: ltr; "><font
                  face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>Desde:</b>
                  <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
                  [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] en nombre de
                  parminder [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>]<br>
                  <b>Enviado el:</b> martes, 07 de agosto de 2012 00:17<br>
                  <b>Hasta:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; David
                  Conrad<br>
                  <b>Asunto:</b> Re: [governance] India's communications
                  minister - root server misunderstanding (still...)<br>
                </font><br>
              </div>
              <div>David,<br>
                <br>
                <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 05 August 2012
                  10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote:<br>
                </div>
                <blockquote type="cite">Parminder,
                  <div><br>
                    <div>
                      <div>On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder <<a
                          moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
                          target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
                        wrote:</div>
                      <blockquote type="cite">
                        <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Now, we know that there
                          are three kinds of root servers, the
                          authoritative root server (in which changes
                          are made to the root file vide the IANA
                          process), 13 root servers and then the any
                          number of mirrors that can allegedly be
                          created by making an investment of 3k usd .<br>
                        </div>
                      </blockquote>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      <div>No.</div>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      <div>
                        <div>There is a "distribution master". </div>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </blockquote>
                <br>
                So, well, apologies for referring to the root zone file
                as the highest level of root zone server; I should
                perhaps simply have said 'the highest level of
                Internet's root architecture'. However, your chastising
                may be biased. Someone, quite unlike me, with deep
                technical training like Daniel said is a recent email; <br>
                <blockquote>
                  <p style="margin-bottom:0cm">"As already mentioned,
                    there are hundreds of root server instances. Each of
                    these is an actual root server."</p>
                </blockquote>
                <p style="margin-bottom:0cm">Isnt this statement as or
                  more untrue, in a discussion where we are mainly
                  speaking about actual 'control' over the root file.
                  The hundreds of root servers mentioned above are NOT
                  'actual root servers'. An actual root server is a
                  shorthand for an actual root server operator, who
                  exercises control (at least potentially) over the root
                  zone file that he publishes. (I learnt this from my
                  earlier discussions with you on the IANA authority and
                  the US.) The 'ill-informed' Indian minister seems
                  rather better informed than 'technical experts' here
                  on this particular issue. He seems to know better
                  which is a true or actual root server and which is
                  not. Quote from the same interview where he quite
                  wrongly said that Internet traffic flows through 13
                  root servers (he should have said, internet traffic,
                  in a way, gets directed by 13 root servers).<br>
                </p>
                 
                <style type="text/css">
<!--
@page
        {margin:2cm}
p
        {margin-bottom:0.21cm}
-->
</style><br>
                "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but
                without mechanisms of control and intervention."<br>
                <br>
                Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what
                they suppress (or forget to mention) depends on their
                techno-political proclivities. Isnt it obvious! 
                <br>
                <br>
                In response to my another email, you have asked me to
                "provide examples of supposed 'statements of technical
                facts' that are ''thoroughly wrapped in a certain
                techno-political viewpoint". Apart from the above
                example, I will try and find others in your email below
                :) <br>
                <br>
                <blockquote type="cite">
                  <div>
                    <div>
                      <div>
                        <div>(snip)</div>
                        <div><br>
                        </div>
                      </div>
                      <div>That's all.  There are no special "13"
                        machines that are the "true root servers" from
                        which other lesser machines mirror the root
                        zone.</div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </blockquote>
                Well, you did understand early in this discussion that
                the argument is not about 'true root servers' but about
                'true root server operators', so why dont we stick to
                the real point of contestation rather than create
                strawmen and defend against them. From your email of a
                few days ago <br>
                <br>
                <blockquote>"The concern (as I understand it) is that
                  the administration of those root servers is in the
                  hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. "
                  (David)
                  <br>
                  <br>
                </blockquote>
                Yes, true. It is this what we are discussing here, not
                the network latency problem. In that email, you
                understood the concern right. It is about root server
                operators, and the term '13 root servers' is loosely
                used to mean '13 root server operators'. That is the
                real issue, and it was the issue that bothered the
                Indian and the African ministers the latter being
                wrongly, if not mischievously, retorted to in terms to
                availability of root server mirrors - a very different
                issue. Similarly, this current discussion is
                continuously pulled towards the convenient description
                of geographic extensions through mirrors of root
                servers, away from the real issue of 'concentration'
                (against distribution) of power to change root file or
                resist changes to root file that is with the root server
                operators and none at all with anycast mirror operators.<br>
                <br>
                It is very interesting that when I did that long
                discussion with you, David, on the US's unilateral IANA
                authority, your almost entire case was based on how the
                root server operators are really independent (which is
                the same thing as saying they have 'power') and this is
                the insurance against any US mischief with the root zone
                file. However, now when we are discussing the power of
                root server operators, which is geo-politically very
                unevenly distributed, the 'power' with the root server
                operators is sought to be so minimized as to be
                completely evaporated. The focus is repeatedly sought to
                shifted to how anyone can set up a root server and that
                those who speak about 13 root servers (meaning, root
                server operators) being not distributed well enough are
                merely stupid!<br>
                <br>
                How does what appears to be the 'same fact' take such
                very different manifestations in two different political
                arguments? This is what I mean by 'technical advice'
                being warped by strong techno-political viewpoints. I am
                not making any personal accusation. I am stating a
                sociological 'fact'. <br>
                <br>
                <blockquote type="cite">
                  <div>
                    <div>(snip)<br>
                      <blockquote type="cite">
                        <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">What I see is that, while
                          there are of course clearly very significant
                          differences between these three layers or
                          kinds of root servers, much of the 'technical
                          input' on this list that I have come across
                          seem to focus on the non-difference and
                          greatly underplay the difference. </div>
                      </blockquote>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      <div>As discussed above, the distinction you are
                        making doesn't exist.</div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </blockquote>
                <br>
                Well!! See above for the distinction. A clear
                distinction that you did understand and articulate in
                your earlier email in terms of concentration of ability
                for "administration of those root servers is in the
                hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. "
                There is obvious and very important distinction between
                the 'power' of root zone operator and someone operating
                a mirror. This distinction is the very basis of the
                whole discussion in this thread. But you have easily and
                conveniently dismissed, or minimised, distinctions
                between the root file layer, root zone layer and anycast
                mirror layer, esp between these two latter layers . This
                is done through a unilateral decision to speak about one
                thing when the other party is speaking about quite
                another, or at least another aspect of the issue - which
                here is the issue of 'control' rather than availability
                of root file for resolving queries.
                <br>
                <br>
                <blockquote type="cite">
                  <div>
                    <div><br>
                      <blockquote type="cite">
                        <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">This I think is
                          politically motivated, though disguised as
                          factual neutral/ technical information.</div>
                      </blockquote>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      <div>Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it
                        makes it difficult to communicate.</div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </blockquote>
                <br>
                :). I made it clear at the onset that I am trying to
                argue that when a group has strong political
                inclinations - as the so called technical community has
                -  its technical advice gets accordingly wrapped... Call
                it my conspiracy theory, but at least I am upfront. But
                also (try to ) see how the technical community sees deep
                conspiracies in every single political utterance from
                the South. Worse its conspiracy theory is further
                compounded by a 'stupidity theory'. Double insult!
                <br>
                <blockquote type="cite">
                  <div>
                    <div>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      (snip)
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      You misread.  The 13 IP(v4) address limitation due
                      to the default maximum DNS message size still
                      exists.  While there are now ways around this
                      limitation (specifically, the EDNS0 extension to
                      the DNS specification), these ways are not
                      universally supported and as such, cannot be
                      relied upon, particularly for root service.</div>
                  </div>
                </blockquote>
                No, I dont think I misread. Just that the fact remains
                that the number 13 can be expanded without much
                difficulty, but you are not too interested to explore
                that direction while I am (again, political proclivities
                intervene). Wasnt introducing multilingual gtlds also
                considered a bit 'difficult to rely upon' just a few
                years back. Finally, political considerations helped get
                over that unnecessary and exaggerated fear. It depended
                who were taking the decisions, the US centric ICANN
                establishment earlier, but the same establishment with
                some WSIS related fears and cautions in the second
                instance.
                <br>
                <br>
                <blockquote type="cite">
                  <div>
                    <div><br>
                      <blockquote type="cite">
                        <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">So if indeed it is not,
                          why not breach it and make people of the world
                          happy.
                        </div>
                      </blockquote>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      <div>Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt
                        everyone having their own root server would make
                        the people of the world happy.</div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </blockquote>
                This is 'the' most important point - whether there is
                any justification at all to increase the number or root
                servers and/or to reallocate / redistribute them in a
                manner that is politically more justifiable and thus
                sustainable. I will take it up in a separate email. <br>
                <br>
                regards<br>
                parminder <br>
                <br>
                <blockquote type="cite">
                  <div>
                    <div><br>
                      <blockquote type="cite">
                        <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Even within the limit of
                          13, why not allocate root servers in a
                          geo-graphically equitable manner, as
                          Sivasubramanian has suggested, especially when
                          it seems to make no difference at all to
                          anyone. Why not make all these ill-informed
                          ministers happy. </div>
                      </blockquote>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      <div>As mentioned in a previous note, the
                        operators of the root servers are independent
                        (modulo "A" and "J" (through the Verisign
                        contract with the USG) and "E", "G", and "H"
                        (operated by USG Departments), albeit each of
                        these operators deal with their root servers
                        differently). How root server operators
                        distribute their instances is entirely their
                        decision.  To date, there has apparently been
                        insufficient justification for those root server
                        operators to decide to distribute their machines
                        in a "geo-graphically equitable manner".</div>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      <div>With that said, there are at least two root
                        server operators ("L" (ICANN) and "F" (ISC)) who
                        have publicly stated they are willing to give a
                        root server instance to anyone that asks.
                        Perhaps the ill-informed ministers could be
                        informed of this so they could be happy?</div>
                      <br>
                      <blockquote type="cite">
                        <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">I read that there is no
                          central control over the 13 or at least 9 of
                          these root servers. Is it really true? </div>
                      </blockquote>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of
                      centralized control is seen as a feature as it
                      reduces the opportunities for "capture".</div>
                    <div><br>
                      <blockquote type="cite">
                        <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Is the 13 root server
                          architecture not something that is aligned to
                          what goes in and from the authoritative root
                          server. 
                        </div>
                      </blockquote>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      Root server architecture is independent of how the
                      root zone is distributed.</div>
                    <div><br>
                      <blockquote type="cite">
                        <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">If it is, why can these
                          root servers not be reallocated in the way
                          tlds have been reallocated. Can they be
                          reallocated or cant they? </div>
                      </blockquote>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      <div>In practical terms, the "reallocation of a
                        root server" boils down to transferring the root
                        server's IP address and telling the new owner
                        the zone transfer password.</div>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      <div>Before the DNS became a political
                        battleground, root server "reallocation"
                        occurred (extremely infrequently) when (a) the
                        person to whom Jon Postel "gave" the root server
                        changed employers or (b) the assets of the
                        organization running the root server were
                        acquired by another company. Today,
                        "reallocation" of a root server would either
                        require the existing root server operator
                        voluntarily giving the root server IP address to
                        a different organization or that IP address
                        would have to be "taken" by eminent domain or
                        somesuch.</div>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                    <div>
                      <blockquote type="cite">
                        <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">I also read that the it
                          is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13
                          root server operators,
                        </div>
                      </blockquote>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      <div>Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates
                        two root servers).</div>
                      <br>
                      <blockquote type="cite">
                        <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">so the number 13 is about
                          the root server ownership points, and not
                          physical location points.
                        </div>
                      </blockquote>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses
                      that are "owned" by 12 organizations.  Geography
                      is largely irrelevant.</div>
                    <div><br>
                      <blockquote type="cite">
                        <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Therefore what is needed
                          is to reallocate the ownership points in a
                          geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva
                          suggests, probably one to an Indian Institute
                          of Technology.
                        </div>
                      </blockquote>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      <div>Somewhat as an aside, my understanding is
                        that efforts to provide infrastructure (not root
                        server infrastructure specifically albeit the
                        same folks do provide anycast instances for a
                        root server operator) in India were blocked by
                        demands for bribes greater than the value of
                        hardware being shipped into the country (see <a
                          moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786"
                          target="_blank">http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786</a>).</div>
                      <br>
                      <blockquote type="cite">
                        <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Why this is not done, or
                          cant be done are the real questions in the
                          present debate. Any answers?<br>
                        </div>
                      </blockquote>
                      <div><br>
                      </div>
                      <div>Sure. You are assuming a top-down model that
                        does not exist.  There is no single entity that
                        can dictate to the root server operators "you
                        will give your root server to IIT".  You and
                        others that care about this are free to make the
                        case to (say) Verisign that it would be in their
                        corporate best interests for them to relocate
                        administrative control of one of their root
                        servers to India, but it would be up to Verisign
                        (or perhaps more accurately, its shareholders)
                        to make that decision.</div>
                      <br>
                      <blockquote type="cite">
                        <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Is the real problem here
                          that if root server allocation issue is opened
                          up, countries would like to go country-wise on
                          root servers (as the recent China's proposal
                          for 'Autonomous Internet') which will skew the
                          present non-nation wise Internet topology
                          (other than its US centricity), which is an
                          important feature of the Internet.<br>
                        </div>
                      </blockquote>
                    </div>
                    <br>
                  </div>
                  <div>No. Placement of root servers has no impact on
                    Internet topology. Really. Distributing root server
                    instances can be helpful in reducing root query
                    latency and improving resiliency in the event of
                    network disruption. That's pretty much it. Opening
                    up the "root server allocation issue" is a red
                    herring, particularly given pretty much anyone can
                    get a root server instance if they care and are
                    willing to abide by the restrictions inherent in
                    operating a root server. </div>
                  <div><br>
                  </div>
                  <div>Merging a subsequent note:</div>
                  <div><br>
                  </div>
                  <div>
                    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 05 August
                      2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote:</div>
                  </div>
                  <div>
                    <blockquote type="cite"><span
                        style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">'
                        administrative access will not be available' to
                        the anycast operator to his own anycast server.
                      </span></blockquote>
                    <div><br>
                    </div>
                    <div>Yes.  However, if you ask anyone familiar with
                      computer systems, you will be told that if you
                      have physical access to a machine, you can gain
                      control of that machine.  Obtaining such control
                      would violate the terms by which the machine was
                      granted, but that's irrelevant.</div>
                    <br>
                    <blockquote type="cite"><span
                        style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">This
                        is a pretty centralised control, </span><span
                        style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">not at
                        all the picture one got from all the technically
                        well informed insiders who seem to suggest on
                        this list that everything is open, uncontrolled
                        and hunky-dory and kind of anyone can set up and
                        operate root servers.</span></blockquote>
                    <div><br>
                    </div>
                    <div>I'm getting the impression that you read what
                      you prefer to read, not what is actually written.
                       No one (to my knowledge) has suggested
                      "everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory".
                       Root service is considered critical
                      infrastructure and is treated as such, so anyone
                      asserting it is "open and uncontrolled" would be
                      confused at best.  Can you provide a reference to
                      anyone making this suggestion?</div>
                    <div><br>
                    </div>
                    <div>As for "hunky-dory", I suppose some folks would
                      say the way the root servers are operated is
                      "hunky-dory".  I am not among them.</div>
                    <div><br>
                    </div>
                    <blockquote type="cite"><span
                        style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Was
                        the African minister really so wrong, or even
                        the Indian minister? </span></blockquote>
                    <br>
                  </div>
                  <div>Yes. Really. </div>
                  <div><br>
                  </div>
                  <div>Regards,</div>
                  <div>-drc</div>
                  <div><br>
                  </div>
                </blockquote>
                <br>
                <br>
              </div>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>