Alternative DNS systems and net neutrality - Was: Re: [governance] DNSsec and allternative DNS system

[Karl Auerbach]

> While I am not a technical expert, and would not go into discussion on
> that level, I'd strongly argue from a policy maker's perspective
> against multiple roots, multiple DNS, where every country or may be
> even more - every group, or every individual (as Karl would probably
> add) have their own root, domains, IP address issuing, etc. Why?
...
> 1. The current model is working.

Is it?

First there is the basic matter that the DNS on the internet is no more 
resistant to failure today than it was in 1997 - except on one point: 
The legacy root server operators have undertaken on their own 
initiative, own money, and without asking permission from anybody, to 
deploy anycast routing and thus multiply the actual number of root 
servers from 13 to 10x that number.  This was done in spite of ICANN, 
not by ICANN.

Apart from that, ICANN offers no technical oversight, no protection, no 
recovery support for a possible failure or corruption of the ability of 
DNS to quickly, efficiently, and accurately turn DNS queries into DNS 
responses without bias for or against any query source or any query 
question.

I have long advocated - since year 2000 - that ICANN establish a DNS 
monitoring system to have an early warning when things are going awry. 
I could not get ICANN's board to listen.

I have long advocated "DNS on a DVD" - a bootable system that contains 
enough DNS mechanisms so that communities undergoing emergencies or 
disasters in which communications are disrupted can start to build-up 
their infrastructure from the inside while waiting for the outside to 
build their way back in.  (Having lived through earthquakes, fires, and 
floods, I know the value of local self-recovery rather than sitting and 
waiting.)  But ICANN's response: they did not want to hear it.

Instead ICANN has spent its time and effort dealing with the 
registration side of things - a side of DNS that 99.99999% of users 
don't even know about, much less care about.

It's as if we created a regulatory body to ensure the safety of 
passenger air travel and instead of caring about pilot training, 
maintenance, etc, they care about whether the ticket sales counters are 
open 24x7 and whether there is a ticket exchange policy.

On top of that, ICANN has created a system that, by my estimate, is 
pulling over half a billion dollars (US) out of the pockets of those who 
buy domain names and depositing most of that amount into the bank 
accounts of the very few TLD incumbent registries.

On top of that, internet innovation in the name space has been so 
channeled and constricted that it has shriveled into nothing more than 
an sleazy world of advertising plastered on everything everywhere and a 
load of speculative name registrations that requires registries to build 
out their systems (and charge us for that build out) well beyond what 
would be required had there not been this 5 day 
no-cost-to-the-speculators speculative madness.

Is that not very badly broken?

Besides, from whence comes the authority to say "no" to behavior on the 
net that is otherwise completely lawful?

		--karl--
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance