<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 7:07 AM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Wednesday 08 August 2012 01:45 PM, Roland Perry wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
In message <<a href="mailto:50220972.8020108@itforchange.net" target="_blank">50220972.8020108@itforchange.<u></u>net</a>>, at 12:08:42 on Wed, 8 Aug 2012, parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> writes<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
(1) Either, root operators can and will ONLY reflect the root zone file in the 'stealth server', whatever happens - in which case, we should not use the argument of their deemed independence in discussions on problems vis a vis US's unilateral IANA oversight powers<br>
<br>
(2) Or, indeed, at least potentially, root operators can refuse to publish what is considered as an improperly changed file by the US, and support the internet system continuing to work on the basis of the original 'proper' file - whereby, it is useful to redistribute root server operator-ship among agencies that together are more likely to resist US unilateralism.<br>
<br>
One of the above two must be true, and both cant be true<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well, there are other possible scenarios that you haven't listed, but number (2) is much closer to the current situation than (1).<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div></div>
That would mean that it makes the system much more capture-resistant if instead of the present distribution of root server operators, 9 in the US and 3 in US friendly countries, we have these servers </blockquote><div><br>
<br>you mean root operators, not servers, right?? Servers are already distributed globally.<br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">distributed in a more geopolitically equitous manner</blockquote>
<div><br>Who is to say what is "geopolitically equitous"? <br><br>What you are asking for is a change in a system that works well. <br><br>You want this change based on your (mis)perception that many root ops are controlled by the US gov't. <br>
<br>What you seek is a situation where folks who haven't asked to run root-servers will be asked to do this (by you). This would entail them spending (collectively) millions of USD.<br><br>This would also entail "trusting" that these new root-ops whether they are India's IT ministry or <br>
North Koreans or whoever would not serve a file that was somehow "tainted" by a US action (or inaction).<br><br>Would you have these new root-ops sign an agreement? If so with whom? ICANN? IANA? the UN?<br><br>
If so, would this not be "centralised control" of any already de-centralised system?<br><br>How would you convince the current root-ops to give their rootservers to someone else? I am not speaking for my org in this, but I think it highly unlikely that ISC would give up "F", as it is part of our mission and identity.<br>
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> - as I suggested, for a start RIRs of Africa, LA and Asia Pacific get one each, and perhaps one more in each of these continents at a reputed public technical institute. What do you say?<br>
</blockquote><div><br><br>I say its an unfunded mandate that they would be hard-pressed to take up. The RIRs spend money to do what their members ask them to do. No RIR member has asked them to do this AFAIK.<br><br></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Lets first agree on the need and desirability of such re-allocation, before we go to the question how to do it.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br></font></span></blockquote><div><br>Need? My answer is no.<br>
<br>Desirability? Also no.<br><br><br></div></div>-- <br>Cheers,<br><br>McTim<br>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br>