[governance] Milestone Agreement Reached Between ICANN, and F Root Server Operator, Internet Systems Consortium

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 11:05:01AM +0100,
 Kleinwächter <Kleinwächter> wrote 
 a message of 107 lines which said:

> The issue of formal or informal agreements/contracts with root
> server operators played an important role during the discussion
> within the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) in
> 2004/2005. [...] They also critisized that ten of the 13 root
> servers are based in the US.

Any public texts (position papers, speech transcripts, etc) about
these discussions? They seem very difficult to find.

> With regard to the 13 root servers the counter argument here was
> that the number of the existing root servers is limited for
> technical reason

Do note that it was not completely true (and is now quite
false). There was never a hard limit of 13 name servers. There was a
limit of 512 bytes in the response (which translates to *roughly* 13
or 14 name servers) but this limit is now mostly historical, as
indicated in the ICANN SSAC report on the introduction of IPv6
addresses in the root-servers.net zone.

> but that the system of Anycast (root) servers (now more than 100 all
> over the world) would also reduce the capacity for "political
> misuse" of the root server system by one single government close to
> zero. 

Someone really said so? This is quite ridiculous since the physical
location of the machine certainly does not matter, it's the location
of its operator which is important.
____________________________________________________________
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