From william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Aug 1 02:12:54 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 08:12:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Sharing the APrIGF 2012: Southeast Asian Civil Society Joint Statement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wot, no complaints about the DNS root zone? There are other issues? On Jul 31, 2012, at 10:26 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Shared elsewhere by a colleague, kindly find attached documents or simply the statement below as well as the endorser and issuer info. --Fouad > > APrIGF 2012: Southeast Asian Civil Society Joint Statement > From: john liu - forum-asia.org > Date: 31 July 2012 > > Please find attached a joint statement released today by Southeast Asian > civil society delegates to the recently-concluded APrIGF in Tokyo. The > statement includes our positions on issues of concern relating to the > Internet that we have highlighted during the APrIGF, as well as > recommendations to the MSG on improvements to the APrIGF process. > > We hope that this statement will help in your work, and that some of the > points will be reflected in the report to the Global IGF in Baku, as well > as in discussions for the next APrIGF. > > Please feel free to get back to us should you have any questions. All > signatories of this statement are copied on this email. > > Thank you. > > Best wishes, > John Liu > Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) > > ----- > > Statement of Civil Society Delegates from Southeast Asia to > > 2012 Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) > > > 31 July 2012 > > * * > > *Southeast Asian Civil Society Groups Highlight Increasing Rights > Violations Online, Call for Improvements to Internet Governance Processes > in the Region* > > * * > > We, the undersigned civil society delegates from Southeast Asia who > attended and participated in the 2012 Asia-Pacific Regional Internet > Governance Forum (APrIGF) on 18-20 July 2012 in > Tokyo, Japan, make this statement upon the conclusion of the meeting to > highlight the concerns that we raised throughout the forum. > > > We engaged in this meeting with the objective of raising human rights > concerns in relation to the Internet, particularly on issues of freedom of > expression and access to information online, as well as the role of civil > society in Internet governance and policymaking. We organised two panel > discussions, namely “Internet in Asia: Space for Free Expression and > Information” > and “Civil Society in Internet > Governance/Policymaking” > during > the 2012 APrIGF. Through these panel discussions, as well as in other > sessions that we participated in, we raised the following human rights > concerns in relation to the Internet: > > > *Increasing censorship and attacks to online expression* > > > The space for free expression on the Internet is shrinking. Many > governments are extending censorship and control of traditional media to > the Internet. In most cases, censorship measures are implemented in a > non-transparent manner, which makes it difficult to determine whether the > measures taken are in accordance with international laws and standards. > > > In some countries, citizens who make use of the free space on the internet > as bloggers, citizen journalists or social media users become targets of > attacks, arrest, and/or threats by state security agents. These actions by > state authorities produce a chilling effect on internet users resulting in > widespread self-censorship of social and political expression for fear of > reprisals from the government or its agents. > > > We thus call upon all governments to ensure that any measure to limit > freedom of expression and the right to information are in accordance with > international human rights laws and standards, particularly Article 19(3) > of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which > allows for limitations only on narrow and clearly-defined grounds, by > passing the “three-part, cumulative > test” > following > the principles of necessity, proportionality (ensuring that it is the least > restrictive measure) and transparency. Furthermore, any limitation to > freedom of expression, including censorship measures, must be determined by > an independent judicial body, and not left to the arbitrary powers of > governments or intermediaries. These parameters must apply in all > circumstances including during state of emergency and in name of national > security or public order. > > > *New laws and legislative amendments that curb freedom of speech online* > > > We are further alarmed by the growing number of laws and policies in > Southeast Asia that negatively impact freedom of expression on the > Internet. While we recognise the need to address cybercrime and legitimate > national security concerns, we are concerned that such laws seek to extend > media censorship and criminal defamation to the internet, and are also > being used to criminalize individuals or organizations expressing or > sharing legitimate social or political critique. > > > We reiterate that any restriction to freedom of expression on the Internet > must not risk citizens’ rights to hold opinions without interference and to > freedom of thought, conscience and religion as stipulated in Article 18 of > the ICCPR, and it must not be subject to lawful derogation as outlined in UN > General Comment No. 34. > We stress that any introduction of new laws or legislative amendments, > particularly those that could potentially impact human rights, must involve > extensive, inclusive and meaningful public consultations. We further urge > all governments in Southeast Asia to decriminalise defamation both online > and offline. > > > Additionally, we emphasize that the rule of law and the independence of the > judiciary remain among the key challenges to democracy in Southeast Asia. > Law-enforcement agencies and justice systems must presume innocence until > defendants are proven guilty, regardless of whether or not defamation is > criminal. Certain legislation, including those laws that criminalize > online speech and expression, are worth noting here as examples of > legislation in Southeast Asia that warrant close monitoring of their > enactment or enforcement: > > > · Burma – The 2004 Electronic Transactions Act > > · Cambodia – The 2012 Draft Cyber-Law, the 1995 Press Law, and the > 2010 Penal Code > > · Malaysia – The 2012 Amendment to the Evidence Act and the 2011 > Computing Professionals Bill > > · Indonesia – The 2008 Law on Information and Electronic > Transaction and the 2008 Law on Pornography > > · The Philippines – The 2012 Data Privacy Act > > · Thailand – The 2007 Computer Crimes Act, the Article 112 of the > Penal Code, and the 2004 Special Case Investigation Act > > · Vietnam – The 1999 Penal Code, the 2004 Publishing Law, the 2000 > State Secrets Protection Ordinance, and the 2012 Draft Decree on Internet > Management > > > *Intermediary liability* > > > We express our deep concern over the increasing pressures by governments on > internet service providers and content hosts to monitor, regulate and > censor online content. Consequently, such intermediaries are increasingly > being held legally and criminally liable for online content, including > content posted by other users. > > > We reiterate that the regulation of content on the Internet should be > determined by an independent judicial body, and not be left to > intermediaries. We further echo the call by the UN Special Rapporteur on > the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and > expression that intermediaries should not be held liable for online content. > > > *Violations by non-State actors, including those employed by governments* > > > Finally, we are alarmed at the rise of internet vigilante groups acting on > behalf of governments or powerful institutions to help monitor sensitive > information posted over the Internet through personal websites and social > media. Such groups often target persons expressing unpopular opinions and > subject them to abusive behaviour and threats. In some cases, such threats > have been carried out off-line in the form of discriminatory treatment, > physical attacks and even state prosecution of these targets. In addition, > critical and independent websites are frequently being targeted for hacking > and DDoS attacks. > > > We strongly remind all governments that it is their primary obligation to > promote and protect human rights, and this includes protecting its > citizens’ exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression from > violations by non-state actors online. > > > *Improving the APrIGF Process* > > > While we support and uphold the multi-stakeholder process of the IGF, and > value the opportunity to contribute to the global dialogue around these > crucial issues, several aspects of the APrIGF are in need of improvement: > > - Participation by governments across Asia was minimal despite the > multi-stakeholder framework that this forum purports to promote. This has > inevitably limited the dialogues between the different stakeholders on > Internet governance in the Asia-Pacific region. > > - Similarly, there was also inadequate civil society participation at > the APrIGF 2012. One of the reasons to this is that there is a perception > that the APrIGF is a largely ineffective forum in making needed efforts to > advance human rights in cyberspace. > - Multi-stakeholder discussions on and approaches to emerging human > rights issues concerning the Internet were largely limited at the APrIGF > 2012. > - Finally, there was a marked absence or lack of critical assessment of > the progress with regard to the implementation of recommendations made at > the previous APrIGF. This has contributed to the perception of the APrIGF’s > ineffectiveness. > > > *Recommendations to the APrIGF Multi-stakeholder Strategy Group* > > > In view of these shortcomings and with the hope of improving upon the 2012 > APrIGF, we offer the following recommendations to the APrIGF > Multi-stakeholder Strategy Group for future iterations of this event: > > ● To facilitate more robust dialogue and more engagement of those > participants who are not speaking on panels, we recommend *a more > participatory process for sessions*, with fewer time spent on panel > presentations, and more time dedicated to questions and comments from those > in the audience. > > ● In the interest of more a diverse dialogue, we recommend that > efforts be made to enlarge and broaden the spectrum of attendees at the > event. Special effort should be made to *encourage government and civil > society participation*, especially in view of the rare opportunity to > discuss such issues within the host country. Additionally, *the > affordability of the host city and the need for financial assistance *should > be taken into account as a factor that may make civil society participation > more or less likely. > > ● To encourage broader participation in session dialogues and bolster > engagement of civil society, we recommend that strong efforts be made > to*facilitate > inbound remote participation via video conferencing*. In addition to the > valuable service of live web-casting, remote participants should be > empowered to ask questions and make comments within a panel. This could be > facilitated with greater integration of social media, within the APrIGF > website. > > ● To ensure that all issues are well-represented within the > conversations at the APrIGF, we recommend that *at least one plenary > session be dedicated to social issues in internet governance*, such as > online freedom of expression, access to information and digital divide. > > ● To ensure that progress is made on issues discussed at the APrIGF > from one year to another, we recommend that *one plenary session be > dedicated to looking back at the issues raised and recommendations made at > the previous APrIGF*, and critically assessing progress made on those > issues. > > > *Recommendations to Southeast Asian governments* > > * * > > In addition, we make the following specific recommendations to our > respective governments in Southeast Asia: > > - ASEAN governments must ensure that *the ASEAN Human Rights > Declaration* explicitly > and unequivocally protects the right to freedom of expression and freedom > of information in accordance with international human rights laws and > standards. > - ASEAN governments should issue a joint statement to *pronounce their > commitment to uphold Internet freedom*. > > > - All regional governments should *involve civil society meaningfully > and inclusively in Internet policymaking*, especially in drafting laws > and policies that potentially impact human rights, including in > regional-policy arena that involve the issues related to ICT and internet > governance, such as: > - Regional economic integration by 2015 under the ASEAN Economic > Community (AEC). The AEC’s areas > of cooperation include a focus on internet governance, such as: “enhanced > infrastructure and communications connectivity”; and “development of > electronic transactions through e-ASEAN”. Currently, the AEC encourages > only business sector participation and not civil society. > - The ASEAN CIO Forum under the > ASEAN ICT Master Plan > 2015 > also > opens participation only to business sectors. The forum focuses on > CIO16 and its > objective is to “Taking leadership in collaboration and > transformation for > a competitive, highly productive and envisage a > concrete/positive ASEAN ICT > community.” The master plan aims to minimize digital divide and > make ICT in > the region be empowering, transformational, inclusive, vibrant, and > integrated for the people by 2015. > - All regional governments should attend and engage in regional IGFs to > dialogue with other stakeholders, including civil society, on regional > issues concerning the Internet. > > > > > Signed by: > > > Arthit SURIYAWONGKUL > > Coordinator > > Thai Netizen Network > > Bangkok, Thailand > > E-mail: arthit at gmail.com > > Tel: +66 87 504 2221 > > Pirongrong RAMASOOTA > > Thai Media Policy Center Bangkok, Thailand > > E-mail: pirongrong.r at gmail.com > > Tel: +66 89 770 8911 > > Triana DYAH > > Head, Information & Documentation Division > > The Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy > (ELSAM) > > Jakarta, Indonesia > > E-mail: office at elsam.or.id > > Tel: +62 21 7972662 , 79192564 > > Fax: +62 21 79192519 > > > > > > > Edgardo LEGASPI > > Alerts & Communication officer > > Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) > > Bangkok, Thailand > > E-mail: epl at seapa.org > > Tel: +66 8 1116 5137 > > Fax: +66 2 2448749 > > Sean ANG > > Executive Director > > Southeast Asian Centre for e-Media (SEACeM) > > Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > > E-mail: sean at seacem.com > > Tel: +60 3 2284 3367 > > Fax: +60 3 2289 2579 > > Victorius (Ndaru) EPS > > Jakarta, Indonesia > > > > > > > > > NGETH Moses > > Communication Coordinator > > Community Legal Education Center (CLEC) > > Phnom Penh, Cambodia > > E-mail: Moses at clec.org.kh > > Tel: (855) 66 777 010 > Fax: (855) 23 211 723 > > Sovathana (Nana) NEANG > > Phnom Penh, Cambodia > > > YAP Swee Seng > > Executive Director > > Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development > (FORUM-ASIA) > > E-mail: yap at forum-asia.org > > Tel: +66 81 868 9178 > Fax: +66 2 6379128 > > > > > > > Endorsed by: > > > > > > ICT Watch (Indonesian ICT Partnership Association) > > Jakarta, Indonesia > > Email: info at ictwatch.com > > Tel: (021) 98495770 > > Fax: (021) 8280691 > -- > John Liu > East Asia (Southeast and Northeast Asia) Programme Officer > Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development > (FORUM-ASIA) > 66/2 Pan Road, Silom, Bang Rak, Bangkok, 10500 Thailand > Tel: +66 2 637 9126 | Fax: +66 2 637 9128 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 03:36:42 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 10:36:42 +0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN Continues to Prove It Can't - Computerworld In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The same old debate of ICANN's blunders, conflicts of interest, registries and registrars running the ICANN show, the possible ITU takeover, and the negative impact of this takeover. Fahd On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/07/icann-continues-to-prove-it-cant/index.htm > > Fouad Bajwa > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Aug 1 05:33:50 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 10:33:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN Continues to Prove It Can't - Computerworld In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 10:36:42 on Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Fahd A. Batayneh writes >The same old debate of ICANN's blunders, conflicts of interest, >registries and registrars running the ICANN show, the possible ITU >takeover, and the negative impact of this takeover Not to mention re-running the old debate "why do we need more gTLDs anyway"? Presumably people will still be asking that in mid-2013 when the first new ones appear in the root. It's not an inappropriate question to ask, but it's a bit late now. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 05:38:48 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:38:48 +0300 Subject: [governance] Sharing the APrIGF 2012: Southeast Asian Civil Society Joint Statement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: While the joint statement mentions issues related to Privacy, Openness, and Access, they have neglected other important aspects such as Security and CIR. Fahd On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Shared elsewhere by a colleague, kindly find attached documents or simply > the statement below as well as the endorser and issuer info. --Fouad > > APrIGF 2012: Southeast Asian Civil Society Joint Statement > From: john liu - forum-asia.org > Date: 31 July 2012 > > Please find attached a joint statement released today by Southeast Asian > civil society delegates to the recently-concluded APrIGF in Tokyo. The > statement includes our positions on issues of concern relating to the > Internet that we have highlighted during the APrIGF, as well as > recommendations to the MSG on improvements to the APrIGF process. > > We hope that this statement will help in your work, and that some of the > points will be reflected in the report to the Global IGF in Baku, as well > as in discussions for the next APrIGF. > > Please feel free to get back to us should you have any questions. All > signatories of this statement are copied on this email. > > Thank you. > > Best wishes, > John Liu > Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) > > ----- > > Statement of Civil Society Delegates from Southeast Asia to > > 2012 Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) > > 31 July 2012 > > * * > > *Southeast Asian Civil Society Groups Highlight Increasing Rights > Violations Online, Call for Improvements to Internet Governance Processes > in the Region* > > * * > > We, the undersigned civil society delegates from Southeast Asia who > attended and participated in the 2012 Asia-Pacific Regional Internet > Governance Forum (APrIGF) on 18-20 July 2012 in > Tokyo, Japan, make this statement upon the conclusion of the meeting to > highlight the concerns that we raised throughout the forum. > > We engaged in this meeting with the objective of raising human rights > concerns in relation to the Internet, particularly on issues of freedom of > expression and access to information online, as well as the role of civil > society in Internet governance and policymaking. We organised two panel > discussions, namely “Internet in Asia: Space for Free Expression and > Information”< > http://2012.rigf.asia/session-c4-internet-for-asia-space-for-free-expression-information/ > > > and “Civil Society in Internet > Governance/Policymaking”< > http://2012.rigf.asia/session-b5-civil-society-in-internet-governance-policy-making/ > > > during > the 2012 APrIGF. Through these panel discussions, as well as in other > sessions that we participated in, we raised the following human rights > concerns in relation to the Internet: > > *Increasing censorship and attacks to online expression* > > The space for free expression on the Internet is shrinking. Many > governments are extending censorship and control of traditional media to > the Internet. In most cases, censorship measures are implemented in a > non-transparent manner, which makes it difficult to determine whether the > measures taken are in accordance with international laws and standards. > > In some countries, citizens who make use of the free space on the internet > as bloggers, citizen journalists or social media users become targets of > attacks, arrest, and/or threats by state security agents. These actions by > state authorities produce a chilling effect on internet users resulting in > widespread self-censorship of social and political expression for fear of > reprisals from the government or its agents. > > We thus call upon all governments to ensure that any measure to limit > freedom of expression and the right to information are in accordance with > international human rights laws and standards, particularly Article 19(3) > of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which > allows for limitations only on narrow and clearly-defined grounds, by > passing the “three-part, cumulative > test”< > http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf > > > following > the principles of necessity, proportionality (ensuring that it is the least > restrictive measure) and transparency. Furthermore, any limitation to > freedom of expression, including censorship measures, must be determined by > an independent judicial body, and not left to the arbitrary powers of > governments or intermediaries. These parameters must apply in all > circumstances including during state of emergency and in name of national > security or public order. > > *New laws and legislative amendments that curb freedom of speech online* > > We are further alarmed by the growing number of laws and policies in > Southeast Asia that negatively impact freedom of expression on the > Internet. While we recognise the need to address cybercrime and legitimate > national security concerns, we are concerned that such laws seek to extend > media censorship and criminal defamation to the internet, and are also > being used to criminalize individuals or organizations expressing or > sharing legitimate social or political critique. > > We reiterate that any restriction to freedom of expression on the Internet > must not risk citizens’ rights to hold opinions without interference and to > freedom of thought, conscience and religion as stipulated in Article 18 of > the ICCPR, and it must not be subject to lawful derogation as outlined in > UN > General Comment No. 34< > http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/gc34.pdf>. > We stress that any introduction of new laws or legislative amendments, > particularly those that could potentially impact human rights, must involve > extensive, inclusive and meaningful public consultations. We further urge > all governments in Southeast Asia to decriminalise defamation both online > and offline. > > Additionally, we emphasize that the rule of law and the independence of the > judiciary remain among the key challenges to democracy in Southeast Asia. > Law-enforcement agencies and justice systems must presume innocence until > defendants are proven guilty, regardless of whether or not defamation is > criminal. Certain legislation, including those laws that criminalize > online speech and expression, are worth noting here as examples of > legislation in Southeast Asia that warrant close monitoring of their > enactment or enforcement: > > · Burma – The 2004 Electronic Transactions Act > > · Cambodia – The 2012 Draft Cyber-Law, the 1995 Press Law, and the > 2010 Penal Code > > · Malaysia – The 2012 Amendment to the Evidence Act and the 2011 > Computing Professionals Bill > > · Indonesia – The 2008 Law on Information and Electronic > Transaction and the 2008 Law on Pornography > > · The Philippines – The 2012 Data Privacy Act > > · Thailand – The 2007 Computer Crimes Act, the Article 112 of the > Penal Code, and the 2004 Special Case Investigation Act > > · Vietnam – The 1999 Penal Code, the 2004 Publishing Law, the 2000 > State Secrets Protection Ordinance, and the 2012 Draft Decree on Internet > Management > > *Intermediary liability* > > We express our deep concern over the increasing pressures by governments on > internet service providers and content hosts to monitor, regulate and > censor online content. Consequently, such intermediaries are increasingly > being held legally and criminally liable for online content, including > content posted by other users. > > We reiterate that the regulation of content on the Internet should be > determined by an independent judicial body, and not be left to > intermediaries. We further echo the call by the UN Special Rapporteur on > the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and > expression that intermediaries should not be held liable for online > content. > > *Violations by non-State actors, including those employed by governments* > > Finally, we are alarmed at the rise of internet vigilante groups acting on > behalf of governments or powerful institutions to help monitor sensitive > information posted over the Internet through personal websites and social > media. Such groups often target persons expressing unpopular opinions and > subject them to abusive behaviour and threats. In some cases, such threats > have been carried out off-line in the form of discriminatory treatment, > physical attacks and even state prosecution of these targets. In addition, > critical and independent websites are frequently being targeted for hacking > and DDoS attacks. > > We strongly remind all governments that it is their primary obligation to > promote and protect human rights, and this includes protecting its > citizens’ exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression from > violations by non-state actors online. > > *Improving the APrIGF Process* > > While we support and uphold the multi-stakeholder process of the IGF, and > value the opportunity to contribute to the global dialogue around these > crucial issues, several aspects of the APrIGF are in need of improvement: > > - Participation by governments across Asia was minimal despite the > multi-stakeholder framework that this forum purports to promote. This > has > inevitably limited the dialogues between the different stakeholders on > Internet governance in the Asia-Pacific region. > > - Similarly, there was also inadequate civil society participation at > the APrIGF 2012. One of the reasons to this is that there is a > perception > that the APrIGF is a largely ineffective forum in making needed efforts > to > advance human rights in cyberspace. > - Multi-stakeholder discussions on and approaches to emerging human > rights issues concerning the Internet were largely limited at the APrIGF > 2012. > - Finally, there was a marked absence or lack of critical assessment of > the progress with regard to the implementation of recommendations made > at > the previous APrIGF. This has contributed to the perception of the > APrIGF’s > ineffectiveness. > > *Recommendations to the APrIGF Multi-stakeholder Strategy Group* > > In view of these shortcomings and with the hope of improving upon the 2012 > APrIGF, we offer the following recommendations to the APrIGF > Multi-stakeholder Strategy Group for future iterations of this event: > > ● To facilitate more robust dialogue and more engagement of those > participants who are not speaking on panels, we recommend *a more > participatory process for sessions*, with fewer time spent on panel > presentations, and more time dedicated to questions and comments from those > in the audience. > > ● In the interest of more a diverse dialogue, we recommend that > efforts be made to enlarge and broaden the spectrum of attendees at the > event. Special effort should be made to *encourage government and civil > society participation*, especially in view of the rare opportunity to > discuss such issues within the host country. Additionally, *the > affordability of the host city and the need for financial assistance > *should > be taken into account as a factor that may make civil society participation > more or less likely. > > ● To encourage broader participation in session dialogues and bolster > engagement of civil society, we recommend that strong efforts be made > to*facilitate > inbound remote participation via video conferencing*. In addition to the > valuable service of live web-casting, remote participants should be > empowered to ask questions and make comments within a panel. This could be > facilitated with greater integration of social media, within the APrIGF > website. > > ● To ensure that all issues are well-represented within the > conversations at the APrIGF, we recommend that *at least one plenary > session be dedicated to social issues in internet governance*, such as > online freedom of expression, access to information and digital divide. > > ● To ensure that progress is made on issues discussed at the APrIGF > from one year to another, we recommend that *one plenary session be > dedicated to looking back at the issues raised and recommendations made at > the previous APrIGF*, and critically assessing progress made on those > issues. > > *Recommendations to Southeast Asian governments* > > * * > > In addition, we make the following specific recommendations to our > respective governments in Southeast Asia: > > - ASEAN governments must ensure that *the ASEAN Human Rights > Declaration* explicitly > and unequivocally protects the right to freedom of expression and > freedom > of information in accordance with international human rights laws and > standards. > - ASEAN governments should issue a joint statement to *pronounce their > commitment to uphold Internet freedom*. > > - All regional governments should *involve civil society meaningfully > and inclusively in Internet policymaking*, especially in drafting laws > and policies that potentially impact human rights, including in > regional-policy arena that involve the issues related to ICT and > internet > governance, such as: > - Regional economic integration by 2015 under the ASEAN Economic > Community (AEC). The AEC’s areas > of cooperation include a focus on internet governance, such as: > “enhanced > infrastructure and communications connectivity”; and “development of > electronic transactions through e-ASEAN”. Currently, the AEC > encourages > only business sector participation and not civil society. > - The ASEAN CIO Forum > under the > ASEAN ICT Master Plan > 2015 > > also > opens participation only to business sectors. The forum focuses on > CIO16 and its > objective is to “Taking leadership in collaboration and > transformation for > a competitive, highly productive and envisage a > concrete/positive ASEAN ICT > community.” The master plan aims to minimize digital divide and > make ICT in > the region be empowering, transformational, inclusive, vibrant, and > integrated for the people by 2015. > - All regional governments should attend and engage in regional IGFs to > dialogue with other stakeholders, including civil society, on regional > issues concerning the Internet. > > > > Signed by: > > Arthit SURIYAWONGKUL > > Coordinator > > Thai Netizen Network > > Bangkok, Thailand > > E-mail: arthit at gmail.com > > Tel: +66 87 504 2221 > > Pirongrong RAMASOOTA > > Thai Media Policy Center Bangkok, Thailand > > E-mail: pirongrong.r at gmail.com > > Tel: +66 89 770 8911 > > Triana DYAH > > Head, Information & Documentation Division > > The Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy > (ELSAM) > > Jakarta, Indonesia > > E-mail: office at elsam.or.id > > Tel: +62 21 7972662 , 79192564 > > Fax: +62 21 79192519 > > > > > > Edgardo LEGASPI > > Alerts & Communication officer > > Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) > > Bangkok, Thailand > > E-mail: epl at seapa.org > > Tel: +66 8 1116 5137 > > Fax: +66 2 2448749 > > Sean ANG > > Executive Director > > Southeast Asian Centre for e-Media (SEACeM) > > Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > > E-mail: sean at seacem.com > > Tel: +60 3 2284 3367 > > Fax: +60 3 2289 2579 > > Victorius (Ndaru) EPS > > Jakarta, Indonesia > > > > > > > > NGETH Moses > > Communication Coordinator > > Community Legal Education Center (CLEC) > > Phnom Penh, Cambodia > > E-mail: Moses at clec.org.kh > > Tel: (855) 66 777 010 > Fax: (855) 23 211 723 > > Sovathana (Nana) NEANG > > Phnom Penh, Cambodia > > YAP Swee Seng > > Executive Director > > Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development > (FORUM-ASIA) > > E-mail: yap at forum-asia.org > > Tel: +66 81 868 9178 > Fax: +66 2 6379128 > > > > > > Endorsed by: > > > > > ICT Watch (Indonesian ICT Partnership Association) > > Jakarta, Indonesia > > Email: info at ictwatch.com > > Tel: (021) 98495770 > > Fax: (021) 8280691 > -- > John Liu > East Asia (Southeast and Northeast Asia) Programme Officer > Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development > (FORUM-ASIA) > 66/2 Pan Road, Silom, Bang Rak, Bangkok, 10500 Thailand > Tel: +66 2 637 9126 | Fax: +66 2 637 9128 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 05:48:03 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:48:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Arab IGF] Call for workshops at the Arab IGF In-Reply-To: <8edd6384046786ceda24fdc9c7ef1a74.squirrel@mail.igfarab.org> References: <8edd6384046786ceda24fdc9c7ef1a74.squirrel@mail.igfarab.org> Message-ID: For those interested in being part of the Arab IGF debate in Kuwait City this coming October. Fahd ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Arab IGF Secretariat Date: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 11:37 AM Subject: [Arab IGF] Call for workshops at the Arab IGF To: list at igfarab.org Dear all, The call for workshops at the first meeting of the Arab IGF (Kuwait, 9-11 October 2012) is now published at: http://igfarab.org/index.php/latest-news/item/84-organize-a-workshop-within-the-activities-of-the-first-meeting-of-the-forum Please spread the word within your communities. You are encouraged to put forward workshop proposals using the template published within the "call for workshops" document, and send it to workshops at igfarab.org by *31 August 2012*. Proposals will be reviewed by a dedicated working group within the Arab Multistakeholder Advisory Group (AMAG) according to the criteria described in the published document. Best Regards, -- Arab IGF Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From qshatti at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 05:58:14 2012 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:58:14 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [AMAG] Call for workshops published In-Reply-To: <42374AD0B05558458E006DC2AAAB95E501B699D9@NTRA-EXCH-02.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <42374AD0B05558458E006DC2AAAB95E501B699D9@NTRA-EXCH-02.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: Dear Colleagues: Find Attached the call for workshops for the first Arab IGF meeting in Kuwait. The announcement is posted In the swcretariate website. We look forward to receive workshop proposals from all interested stakeholders. Best Regards, Qusai AlShatti ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Hisham Aboulyazed* Date: Wednesday, August 1, 2012 Subject: [AMAG] Call for workshops published To: Arab Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the Arab IGF Dear all AMAG members,**** The call for workshops is now published on the website at:**** http://igfarab.org/index.php/latest-news/item/84-organize-a-workshop-within-the-activities-of-the-first-meeting-of-the-forum **** ** ** Please spread the word within your communities. As indicated in the call document, proposals should be sent to workshops at igfarab.orgno later than 31 August 2012. **** ** ** As AMAG members, we are also counting on your effort putting forward workshop proposals through entities you are affiliated with. **** ** ** Thanks and best,**** --**** Hisham Aboulyazed**** Senior Manager, WSIS Affairs **** Telecom Services Planning, NTRA**** hyazed at tra.gov.eg **** T: +20 2 35344113**** M: +20 10 5281571**** F: +20 2 35344155/6**** ** ** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 06:52:45 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 06:52:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN Continues to Prove It Can't - Computerworld In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > The same old debate of ICANN's blunders, but one with an anti-ICANN bias: Very few would call a decade a "headlong rush". Usual clueless wankerage masquerading as tech journalism. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Wed Aug 1 07:52:04 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 07:52:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Sharing the APrIGF 2012: Southeast Asian Civil Society Joint Statement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <391361A4-F1FC-4687-9D6E-47C259A3A6D4@privaterra.org> I would suggest sending comments to the signatories of the statement as not sure they are subscribed to this list. Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-08-01, at 5:38 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > While the joint statement mentions issues related to Privacy, Openness, and Access, they have neglected other important aspects such as Security and CIR. > > Fahd > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Shared elsewhere by a colleague, kindly find attached documents or simply the statement below as well as the endorser and issuer info. --Fouad > > APrIGF 2012: Southeast Asian Civil Society Joint Statement > From: john liu - forum-asia.org > Date: 31 July 2012 > > Please find attached a joint statement released today by Southeast Asian > civil society delegates to the recently-concluded APrIGF in Tokyo. The > statement includes our positions on issues of concern relating to the > Internet that we have highlighted during the APrIGF, as well as > recommendations to the MSG on improvements to the APrIGF process. > > We hope that this statement will help in your work, and that some of the > points will be reflected in the report to the Global IGF in Baku, as well > as in discussions for the next APrIGF. > > Please feel free to get back to us should you have any questions. All > signatories of this statement are copied on this email. > > Thank you. > > Best wishes, > John Liu > Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) > > ----- > > Statement of Civil Society Delegates from Southeast Asia to > > 2012 Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) > > > 31 July 2012 > > * * > > *Southeast Asian Civil Society Groups Highlight Increasing Rights > Violations Online, Call for Improvements to Internet Governance Processes > in the Region* > > * * > > We, the undersigned civil society delegates from Southeast Asia who > attended and participated in the 2012 Asia-Pacific Regional Internet > Governance Forum (APrIGF) on 18-20 July 2012 in > Tokyo, Japan, make this statement upon the conclusion of the meeting to > highlight the concerns that we raised throughout the forum. > > > We engaged in this meeting with the objective of raising human rights > concerns in relation to the Internet, particularly on issues of freedom of > expression and access to information online, as well as the role of civil > society in Internet governance and policymaking. We organised two panel > discussions, namely “Internet in Asia: Space for Free Expression and > Information” > and “Civil Society in Internet > Governance/Policymaking” > during > the 2012 APrIGF. Through these panel discussions, as well as in other > sessions that we participated in, we raised the following human rights > concerns in relation to the Internet: > > > *Increasing censorship and attacks to online expression* > > > The space for free expression on the Internet is shrinking. Many > governments are extending censorship and control of traditional media to > the Internet. In most cases, censorship measures are implemented in a > non-transparent manner, which makes it difficult to determine whether the > measures taken are in accordance with international laws and standards. > > > In some countries, citizens who make use of the free space on the internet > as bloggers, citizen journalists or social media users become targets of > attacks, arrest, and/or threats by state security agents. These actions by > state authorities produce a chilling effect on internet users resulting in > widespread self-censorship of social and political expression for fear of > reprisals from the government or its agents. > > > We thus call upon all governments to ensure that any measure to limit > freedom of expression and the right to information are in accordance with > international human rights laws and standards, particularly Article 19(3) > of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which > allows for limitations only on narrow and clearly-defined grounds, by > passing the “three-part, cumulative > test” > following > the principles of necessity, proportionality (ensuring that it is the least > restrictive measure) and transparency. Furthermore, any limitation to > freedom of expression, including censorship measures, must be determined by > an independent judicial body, and not left to the arbitrary powers of > governments or intermediaries. These parameters must apply in all > circumstances including during state of emergency and in name of national > security or public order. > > > *New laws and legislative amendments that curb freedom of speech online* > > > We are further alarmed by the growing number of laws and policies in > Southeast Asia that negatively impact freedom of expression on the > Internet. While we recognise the need to address cybercrime and legitimate > national security concerns, we are concerned that such laws seek to extend > media censorship and criminal defamation to the internet, and are also > being used to criminalize individuals or organizations expressing or > sharing legitimate social or political critique. > > > We reiterate that any restriction to freedom of expression on the Internet > must not risk citizens’ rights to hold opinions without interference and to > freedom of thought, conscience and religion as stipulated in Article 18 of > the ICCPR, and it must not be subject to lawful derogation as outlined in UN > General Comment No. 34. > We stress that any introduction of new laws or legislative amendments, > particularly those that could potentially impact human rights, must involve > extensive, inclusive and meaningful public consultations. We further urge > all governments in Southeast Asia to decriminalise defamation both online > and offline. > > > Additionally, we emphasize that the rule of law and the independence of the > judiciary remain among the key challenges to democracy in Southeast Asia. > Law-enforcement agencies and justice systems must presume innocence until > defendants are proven guilty, regardless of whether or not defamation is > criminal. Certain legislation, including those laws that criminalize > online speech and expression, are worth noting here as examples of > legislation in Southeast Asia that warrant close monitoring of their > enactment or enforcement: > > > · Burma – The 2004 Electronic Transactions Act > > · Cambodia – The 2012 Draft Cyber-Law, the 1995 Press Law, and the > 2010 Penal Code > > · Malaysia – The 2012 Amendment to the Evidence Act and the 2011 > Computing Professionals Bill > > · Indonesia – The 2008 Law on Information and Electronic > Transaction and the 2008 Law on Pornography > > · The Philippines – The 2012 Data Privacy Act > > · Thailand – The 2007 Computer Crimes Act, the Article 112 of the > Penal Code, and the 2004 Special Case Investigation Act > > · Vietnam – The 1999 Penal Code, the 2004 Publishing Law, the 2000 > State Secrets Protection Ordinance, and the 2012 Draft Decree on Internet > Management > > > *Intermediary liability* > > > We express our deep concern over the increasing pressures by governments on > internet service providers and content hosts to monitor, regulate and > censor online content. Consequently, such intermediaries are increasingly > being held legally and criminally liable for online content, including > content posted by other users. > > > We reiterate that the regulation of content on the Internet should be > determined by an independent judicial body, and not be left to > intermediaries. We further echo the call by the UN Special Rapporteur on > the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and > expression that intermediaries should not be held liable for online content. > > > *Violations by non-State actors, including those employed by governments* > > > Finally, we are alarmed at the rise of internet vigilante groups acting on > behalf of governments or powerful institutions to help monitor sensitive > information posted over the Internet through personal websites and social > media. Such groups often target persons expressing unpopular opinions and > subject them to abusive behaviour and threats. In some cases, such threats > have been carried out off-line in the form of discriminatory treatment, > physical attacks and even state prosecution of these targets. In addition, > critical and independent websites are frequently being targeted for hacking > and DDoS attacks. > > > We strongly remind all governments that it is their primary obligation to > promote and protect human rights, and this includes protecting its > citizens’ exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression from > violations by non-state actors online. > > > *Improving the APrIGF Process* > > > While we support and uphold the multi-stakeholder process of the IGF, and > value the opportunity to contribute to the global dialogue around these > crucial issues, several aspects of the APrIGF are in need of improvement: > > - Participation by governments across Asia was minimal despite the > multi-stakeholder framework that this forum purports to promote. This has > inevitably limited the dialogues between the different stakeholders on > Internet governance in the Asia-Pacific region. > > - Similarly, there was also inadequate civil society participation at > the APrIGF 2012. One of the reasons to this is that there is a perception > that the APrIGF is a largely ineffective forum in making needed efforts to > advance human rights in cyberspace. > - Multi-stakeholder discussions on and approaches to emerging human > rights issues concerning the Internet were largely limited at the APrIGF > 2012. > - Finally, there was a marked absence or lack of critical assessment of > the progress with regard to the implementation of recommendations made at > the previous APrIGF. This has contributed to the perception of the APrIGF’s > ineffectiveness. > > > *Recommendations to the APrIGF Multi-stakeholder Strategy Group* > > > In view of these shortcomings and with the hope of improving upon the 2012 > APrIGF, we offer the following recommendations to the APrIGF > Multi-stakeholder Strategy Group for future iterations of this event: > > ● To facilitate more robust dialogue and more engagement of those > participants who are not speaking on panels, we recommend *a more > participatory process for sessions*, with fewer time spent on panel > presentations, and more time dedicated to questions and comments from those > in the audience. > > ● In the interest of more a diverse dialogue, we recommend that > efforts be made to enlarge and broaden the spectrum of attendees at the > event. Special effort should be made to *encourage government and civil > society participation*, especially in view of the rare opportunity to > discuss such issues within the host country. Additionally, *the > affordability of the host city and the need for financial assistance *should > be taken into account as a factor that may make civil society participation > more or less likely. > > ● To encourage broader participation in session dialogues and bolster > engagement of civil society, we recommend that strong efforts be made > to*facilitate > inbound remote participation via video conferencing*. In addition to the > valuable service of live web-casting, remote participants should be > empowered to ask questions and make comments within a panel. This could be > facilitated with greater integration of social media, within the APrIGF > website. > > ● To ensure that all issues are well-represented within the > conversations at the APrIGF, we recommend that *at least one plenary > session be dedicated to social issues in internet governance*, such as > online freedom of expression, access to information and digital divide. > > ● To ensure that progress is made on issues discussed at the APrIGF > from one year to another, we recommend that *one plenary session be > dedicated to looking back at the issues raised and recommendations made at > the previous APrIGF*, and critically assessing progress made on those > issues. > > > *Recommendations to Southeast Asian governments* > > * * > > In addition, we make the following specific recommendations to our > respective governments in Southeast Asia: > > - ASEAN governments must ensure that *the ASEAN Human Rights > Declaration* explicitly > and unequivocally protects the right to freedom of expression and freedom > of information in accordance with international human rights laws and > standards. > - ASEAN governments should issue a joint statement to *pronounce their > commitment to uphold Internet freedom*. > > > - All regional governments should *involve civil society meaningfully > and inclusively in Internet policymaking*, especially in drafting laws > and policies that potentially impact human rights, including in > regional-policy arena that involve the issues related to ICT and internet > governance, such as: > - Regional economic integration by 2015 under the ASEAN Economic > Community (AEC). The AEC’s areas > of cooperation include a focus on internet governance, such as: “enhanced > infrastructure and communications connectivity”; and “development of > electronic transactions through e-ASEAN”. Currently, the AEC encourages > only business sector participation and not civil society. > - The ASEAN CIO Forum under the > ASEAN ICT Master Plan > 2015 > also > opens participation only to business sectors. The forum focuses on > CIO16 and its > objective is to “Taking leadership in collaboration and > transformation for > a competitive, highly productive and envisage a > concrete/positive ASEAN ICT > community.” The master plan aims to minimize digital divide and > make ICT in > the region be empowering, transformational, inclusive, vibrant, and > integrated for the people by 2015. > - All regional governments should attend and engage in regional IGFs to > dialogue with other stakeholders, including civil society, on regional > issues concerning the Internet. > > > > > Signed by: > > > Arthit SURIYAWONGKUL > > Coordinator > > Thai Netizen Network > > Bangkok, Thailand > > E-mail: arthit at gmail.com > > Tel: +66 87 504 2221 > > Pirongrong RAMASOOTA > > Thai Media Policy Center Bangkok, Thailand > > E-mail: pirongrong.r at gmail.com > > Tel: +66 89 770 8911 > > Triana DYAH > > Head, Information & Documentation Division > > The Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy > (ELSAM) > > Jakarta, Indonesia > > E-mail: office at elsam.or.id > > Tel: +62 21 7972662 , 79192564 > > Fax: +62 21 79192519 > > > > > > > Edgardo LEGASPI > > Alerts & Communication officer > > Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) > > Bangkok, Thailand > > E-mail: epl at seapa.org > > Tel: +66 8 1116 5137 > > Fax: +66 2 2448749 > > Sean ANG > > Executive Director > > Southeast Asian Centre for e-Media (SEACeM) > > Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > > E-mail: sean at seacem.com > > Tel: +60 3 2284 3367 > > Fax: +60 3 2289 2579 > > Victorius (Ndaru) EPS > > Jakarta, Indonesia > > > > > > > > > NGETH Moses > > Communication Coordinator > > Community Legal Education Center (CLEC) > > Phnom Penh, Cambodia > > E-mail: Moses at clec.org.kh > > Tel: (855) 66 777 010 > Fax: (855) 23 211 723 > > Sovathana (Nana) NEANG > > Phnom Penh, Cambodia > > > YAP Swee Seng > > Executive Director > > Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development > (FORUM-ASIA) > > E-mail: yap at forum-asia.org > > Tel: +66 81 868 9178 > Fax: +66 2 6379128 > > > > > > > Endorsed by: > > > > > > ICT Watch (Indonesian ICT Partnership Association) > > Jakarta, Indonesia > > Email: info at ictwatch.com > > Tel: (021) 98495770 > > Fax: (021) 8280691 > -- > John Liu > East Asia (Southeast and Northeast Asia) Programme Officer > Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development > (FORUM-ASIA) > 66/2 Pan Road, Silom, Bang Rak, Bangkok, 10500 Thailand > Tel: +66 2 637 9126 | Fax: +66 2 637 9128 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Wed Aug 1 10:41:02 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:41:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] ICANN Continues to Prove It Can't - Computerworld In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DABD4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> An amazingly uninformed article. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Fouad Bajwa Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 5:18 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] ICANN Continues to Prove It Can't - Computerworld http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/07/icann-continues-to-prove-it-cant/index.htm Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 10:53:38 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 19:53:38 +0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN Continues to Prove It Can't - Computerworld In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DABD4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DABD4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi Milton, That was exactly the reason for sharing this article. These uninformed and outside the community observers tend to write such matter and misguide the readers at large. This is one area that should be countered from with the ICANN and IGF related communities and stakeholders that well informed content should be spread across the Internet though that is wishful thinking but still is a pragmatic perception. Best Fouad On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > An amazingly uninformed article. > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Fouad Bajwa > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 5:18 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] ICANN Continues to Prove It Can't - Computerworld > > > > http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/07/icann-continues-to-prove-it-cant/index.htm > > Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Aug 2 01:19:35 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 14:19:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) Message-ID: "Globally, Internet Traffic Passes Through 13 Root Servers" (!) Question: Who governs the internet at present? Sachin Pilot, minister of state for communications and information technology: "Globally, internet traffic passes through 13 root servers. Nine of them are in the US, two each in Japan and Western Europe. These servers move the information. I believe India and other countries ought to play a much more relevant role in managing traffic flows. The internet is a global resource whose governance can't be limited to a particular geography." (Times of India, interview ) Excellent, we're back in 2002/3. Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Thu Aug 2 01:36:22 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 05:36:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Adam, what was the phrase? a painfully misinformed... reason to keep these people's hands off the Internet? What surprises me most, again and again, is supposedly knowledgeable civil society organizations who bow to them. Please someone tell us if there has been any protest in India by Internet-governance related experts. It may have been discreet, polite, subdued, away from our line of sight... How much can something like this be averted, at least looking to the long term, with capacity building at the IGF? Have the potential allies in the original IBSA and successors at least clenched their teeth given the reputation damage their proposals suffer at the hands of statements like this? Should we decry this now and save this person and associated institutions of the public shame his predecessor at last year's IGF put herself in the unenviable position to suffer? What does enlightened civil-society etiquette recommend? Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: apeake at gmail.com [apeake at gmail.com] en nombre de Adam Peake [ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Enviado el: jueves, 02 de agosto de 2012 00:19 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) "Globally, Internet Traffic Passes Through 13 Root Servers" (!) Question: Who governs the internet at present? Sachin Pilot, minister of state for communications and information technology: "Globally, internet traffic passes through 13 root servers. Nine of them are in the US, two each in Japan and Western Europe. These servers move the information. I believe India and other countries ought to play a much more relevant role in managing traffic flows. The internet is a global resource whose governance can't be limited to a particular geography." (Times of India, interview ) Excellent, we're back in 2002/3. Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Thu Aug 2 01:50:40 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 22:50:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7FB6AE34-A8CF-468B-814A-5B735A659E20@virtualized.org> On Aug 1, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > (Times of India, interview > ) I will admit I find the level of knowledge demonstrated in the responses from a "minister of state for communications and information technology" in that interview quite distressing. For those more attuned to political realities than I, how should the 'technical community' go about improving the level of understanding of the basic systems used by the Internet? Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 03:20:00 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:20:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <501A2A20.5000002@gmail.com> On a scale of 1 to 10, how does this rate with "you cannot have more than 1 root" of the politics of WSIS? On 2012/08/02 07:19 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > "Globally, Internet Traffic Passes Through 13 Root Servers" (!) > > > Question: Who governs the internet at present? > > Sachin Pilot, minister of state for communications and information technology: > > "Globally, internet traffic passes through 13 root servers. Nine of > them are in the US, two each in Japan and Western Europe. These > servers move the information. I believe India and other countries > ought to play a much more relevant role in managing traffic flows. The > internet is a global resource whose governance can't be limited to a > particular geography." > > (Times of India, interview > ) > > Excellent, we're back in 2002/3. > > Adam > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 03:26:52 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 10:26:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, it is not very much surprising to me. After all, that is what politicians do, they lack understanding, they mess things up, and claim that the west is behind such a conspiracy. With India hosting the third IGF meeting (in Hyderabad) and the 31st ICANN meeting (in New Delhi), he should have done much better. Fahd On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > < > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120729_globally_internet_traffic_passes_through_13_root_servers/#.UBoL2jEe7hU > > > "Globally, Internet Traffic Passes Through 13 Root Servers" (!) > > > Question: Who governs the internet at present? > > Sachin Pilot, minister of state for communications and information > technology: > > "Globally, internet traffic passes through 13 root servers. Nine of > them are in the US, two each in Japan and Western Europe. These > servers move the information. I believe India and other countries > ought to play a much more relevant role in managing traffic flows. The > internet is a global resource whose governance can't be limited to a > particular geography." > > (Times of India, interview > < > http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-30/edit-page/32924041_1_internet-governance-internet-corporation-root-servers > >) > > Excellent, we're back in 2002/3. > > Adam > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Aug 2 03:33:46 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 08:33:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <7FB6AE34-A8CF-468B-814A-5B735A659E20@virtualized.org> References: <7FB6AE34-A8CF-468B-814A-5B735A659E20@virtualized.org> Message-ID: In message <7FB6AE34-A8CF-468B-814A-5B735A659E20 at virtualized.org>, at 22:50:40 on Wed, 1 Aug 2012, David Conrad writes >> (Times of India, interview >> ) > >I will admit I find the level of knowledge demonstrated in the >responses from a "minister of state for communications and >information technology" in that interview quite distressing. >For those more attuned to political realities than I, how should >the 'technical community' go about improving the level of >understanding of the basic systems used by the Internet? It's relative straightforward, and is done by numerous interest groups[1] in other fields much more extensively than by the ITC. Critics call it "lobbying" but the more enlightened call it "outreach". There are numerous outlets for this, one of which is the preparations and delivery of the IGF, but there are many other opportunities, for example within relevant ITU groups, at the OECD, at ECOSOC and others too numerous to mention. As far as I'm concerned, one of the tricks is to try to fit in, rather than stick out. And as one seasoned Brussels lobbyist advises "always be there, and never be late". And I don't mean just standing up and trying to influence the outcome of meetings (always tempting in a multistakeholder environment, but doesn't work so well as an outsider at membership meetings), although that is occasionally a useful tactic if it's seen as constructive by the other participants. I mean briefing and informing the participants particularly rival lobbyists (some people find that odd, but it works) the government representatives and where possible their ministers. Right on topic, in 2001 I recall taking a newly appointed UK ministry official on a tour of Telehouse in London, showing him the K root server box, and explaining what it did (and more importantly what it didn't do, and why no-one would notice if I were to unplug it for a few seconds). In the rack next door were some Nominet [.uk] servers and down the corridor the main LINX suite, so we talked about those too. Around the same time I had some formal and informal meetings with the UK's "Internet Minister" which had a direct effect on the implementation of some privacy regulations, and across the road I went and explained to a Home Office minister what a url was (at 8am in the morning!), so he could be happy about some traffic data definitions being worked into a new lawful intercept law. Between 2005 and 2010 I performed a similar role for RIPE NCC, and took my roadshow worldwide. More recently I've been educating the authorities in the UK about the harm that comes from Internet trolls and Facebook stalkers, but would be happy to advise any relevant interest groups on how to raise their profiles and reduce the level of misinformation in circulation. And if you want someone to attend a meeting and put your point of view forward in a constructive manner, so people say "now that you've taken the trouble to explain this to us, in terms we can understand, obviously we entirely agree) I can do that too. [1] That's the most neutral generic word I can think of that also fits the Internet Technical Community. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Aug 2 04:17:02 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:47:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Completely Ignored [was East Africa IGF - day 2, discussion of ITRs] In-Reply-To: References: <500E24CF.5050805@itforchange.net> <500E5A94.3020706@itforchange.net> <4$vH9q+dspDQFAHs@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <501A377E.4090009@itforchange.net> Hi Sala On Wednesday 25 July 2012 01:04 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Parminder and Peng Hwa, > > I hope you can find common ground. There may be differences in what we > perceive to be "methodology" no, this is not a 'methodology' issue, it is very substantive. > but that should not stop continued engagement and interaction. We > would encourage you to try and sort this is a > logistical/administrative conflict offline. I am most surprised by your continued undermining of the very important issues of participation, accountability and transparency of events describing themselves as regional IGFs, calling them all kinds of names - methodological, logistical, administrative etc.... It is quite funny too, since this list has seldom done much more that stood up for multi-stakeholderism in IG. Why wouldn't you consider MSism a methodology/ admin/ logistical issue. One is further disappointed, especially since you are a co-coordinator of the IGC, that you want this important discussion to be taken offline. > (snip) > As has been mentioned the Secretariat has developed guidelines. I am sure you would have read them, so can I ask you if you consider them good and sufficient guidelines. In my view, it is these IGF secretariat guidelines that you can safely call as methodological/ administrative/ logistical, rather than the substantive discussions on representativity, participation, transparency etc that I am seeking. regards, Parminder > > Kind Regards, > Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Aug 2 04:18:18 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:48:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Completely Ignored [was East Africa IGF - day 2, discussion of ITRs] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <501A37CA.9010907@itforchange.net> Peng Hwa (and Izumi) On Tuesday 24 July 2012 05:17 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: > Parminder, > > Back from a meeting between the emails. > > First things first. Thank you for your email. I cannot imagine > ignoring your email. (In fact, the 2011 email shows that neither you > nor the issue was ever "completely ignored.") It is not about ignoring me. It is about the issues that not only were ignored, they are still being ignored. You still havent answered, any of the questions that I raised in my 2010 conversations, 2011 email or even in the present exchange. You havent told me why UNESCAP was not approached when most other regional IGF involve the regional UN commissions, you havent told me why efforts were not made to connect to non-technical community NGOs before preparation begun, including those persons/ groups who were involved with WSIS Asia Pacific caucus for instance, why almost no government seems to be involved, i have no clear information on who were on the organising committee (simple information, isnt it, why not share it), who set up the organising committee, who all funded the event, how many and which all participants to the event were funded and on what criteria etc...... Now, before you hasten to think that I am being especially non understanding and harsh on you, pl know that I ask the same questions from the global IGF (in fact IGC has been doing it consistently) and I/ we also did our best to get much of this into the report of the CSTD WG on IGF improvements. So, if I dont ask these question vis a vis an event calling itself the regional AP IGF, I will be being very inconsistent (which unfortunately, some people on this list are being) > I like to think that I would have answered at least some of your > suggestions but I honestly cannot recall it now. No, you did not. The proof of it is, you still havent even when I ask again. > > Be that as it may, I may have felt that you were "mollified" (aka > agree to disagree) because at that time, you had questioned the > legitimacy of the APrIGF. I had said that the legitimacy argument > would in fact play into the hands of those who question the legitimacy > of civil society, an argument that I thought you accepted. Hence the > friendly invite for 2011. > > I'm wondering if the debate is now moot because: > > 1. The IGF Secretariat has now come up with the guidelines for what a > regional or national IGF should contain. (The Secretariat itself > clearly has no problems with others using the IGF to indicate > their national or regional IGF is part of the UN-level IGF.) This > is a rather low bar and the APrIGF meets it. > It is not enough if they set the bar low , it is not that civil society is just sitting to receive with fulsome gratitude whatever the IGF secretariat does or communicates (no, that is not how we have worked traditionally) .We make and let know our positions. The question is, are you fine with the low bar set for regional IGFs? If so, why did we fight so much for raising the bar for the global IGF through our engagements with the WG on IGF improvements, Will be very grateful for an answer, especially from Izumi who was on the WG. > 1. The APrIGF is now under AP*. Some processes have been put in > place for approval of the venue, chair of the PC, etc. > I dont think many people here know what AP* is, and therefore you will have to elaborate. I see it as a group largelyoforganisations that tend to see themselves as the technical community, right! So, perhaps, the equivalent of what you are declaring as the grounds of legitimacy for the so call AP IGF will be someone saying global IGF is now very fine and immune from criticism because' it is now under ISOC'..... I dont know whether you are aware of it or not, but some such proposal, to put IGF under the ISOCs, were mooted during the IGF, but most civil society strongly opposed it. In this background, your claim that your AP rIGF is legitimate because 'now' it is under a loose unclear technical community umbrella group sounds to me rather revisionist from a civil society point of view. > 1. This year, there was a call for panels and some of the panelists > were funded. The next APrIGF will have a similar CFP. > No, that is not enough. There has to be a representative, participative, transparent process from the very start. I am most surprised that you are still not committing to one. You are just saying there was a call for proposals, and next year too there will be one. Also, I want information of which panels were funded and on what creteria. thanks for your engagement, parminder > You can expect the APrIGF to be more transparent in the future. And of > course your suggestions to improve its governance and processes are > always welcome. > > Regards, > Peng Hwa > > > > From: Parminder Singh > > Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 1:30 PM > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org > " >, AngPH > > Subject: Re: [governance] Completely Ignored [was East Africa IGF - > day 2, discussion of ITRs] > > Peng Hwa, > > You have mentioned in your email how I had raised a number of issues when you had first organised the so-called APrIGF in Hongkong in 2010. Indeed, after a few exchanges IT for Change agreed to be present at the meeting on the condition that we would basically say the same things at the meeting about its legitimacy etc as we had been arguing. You kindly consented and we did attend the meeting and made our point. > > However, what surprises me is your conclusion that we were somehow mollified by our conversations with you at Hongkong and then at Vilnius. There is no question of such mollification without the issues we raised being addressed, and as is evident, they never were. > > What is even more surprising are your comments, quote below from your email of the last week, about the second so called APrIGF in Singapore. > > > "When I organized the meeting in Singapore, you did not raise any objection." and, again later in the email " In Singapore, you did not raise any objections. And I thought that's where the issue stood." (Peng Hwa) > > It has obviously entirely skipped your memory, but when you wrote to me inviting me for the Singapore meeting, I wrote a detailed email to you which not only raised the same issues that I had raised earlier, but also suggested, in considerable detail, what in our opinion is the right way to go about organising the APrIGF (so much so for all this talk from various parties that I should be constructive etc, which I must say is a more than a bit patronising). I reproduce below my email to you before Singapore. I would not make your response public which is up to you to decide whatever to do about. I however must say that I had even at that time asked for your permission to make my email public but was persuaded not to, pending further f2f discussions etc which never happened. > parminder > > *My email in response to an invitation to attend the Singapore so called APrIGF is below.*On 5/3/11 12:36 AM, "Parminder Singh" wrote: > > Dear Peng Hwa, > > It is always nice to hear from you, and hope you are doing well! > > Thank you for inviting me to chair a session during the > proposed meeting. I do quite appreciate the utmost sincerely > and serious application that you bring to your efforts to keep > a dialogue on Internet Governance alive in the Asia Pacific > region. However, for the reason mentioned below in some detail > , I am constrained to decline your kind invitation. > > As mentioned in our conversations before the similar meeting > last year, I do not think it legitimate to call any meeting as > a regional IGF without a minimum standard of broad > participation and 'ownership', especially of public interest > actors. Last year I was told that it was the first time and > the meeting has been planned in haste, and that things should > improve for subsequent meetings. However, in this invite for > the 2011 meeting I see no indication about who all are on the > organizing committee, how was the agenda and speaker selection > arrived at, etc. > > Apart from the basic legitimacy question, holding of such > meetings under the banner of national/regional IGFs has a > negative reverse impact on the global IGF to make it look like > it too was just another annual conference on IG, which I do > not think it is (though some people do) . I think that the > global IGF is, or at least is supposed to be, an innovative > experiment in deliberative and participatory democracy for > global governance of the Internet. At least some basic > features of the global IGF suggests the possibility that the > global IGF can, if we have the political will for it, > hopefully evolve to be something close to this ideal. These > features are; strong mooring in a public institution - or a > set of them, a good amount of public funding (though not at > all of the kind, and extent, that can be considered > satisfactory), a multistakeholder group deciding the agenda of > the meeting and the speakers through an intensively > consultative process, and such. > > While some of us are struggling to ensure that the annual IGF > has an even greater public and democratic character, > organization of completely private meetings opaquely planned > and executed, with unknown sponsors and key drivers, like the > proposed meeting being called the Asia Pacific Regional IGF, > is to us a retrograde step. It is for this reason that we > cannot associate with it, and in fact oppose it to be held > under its proposed name. > > I do understand how difficult it is to be innovative and > entrepreneurial in such matters and actually pull an event > like this together; and in relation how facile it may be > considered to criticize such almost valiant efforts. I must > therefore engage constructively and suggest what could > alternatively have been done and would, in my opinion, have > been the better option. Though I cannot suggest funding > options right away, it is possible that the Asia Pacific UN > regional commission (ESCAP) could have shown some interest in > this event. Was it even approached at all? Funding from > governments of some countries could also been explored apart > from sourcing 'monopoly funds' (akin to Internet tax) that are > collected by registrars and such registries that use the > commons resources of geo-political expressions like ctlds. In > any case, wider participation of public interest actors is > always possible to seek. There was this Asia Pacific Civil > Society Caucus at WSIS, which is now defunct but one can > recollect some key names of those - individuals and > organizations - who participated actively. Then there are > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus members from Asia > Pacific quite active in the Internet Governance Caucus. There > are also MAG members from this region. I have no indication > that these actors had any role at all in shaping an activity > which is being called the Asia Pacific Regional IGF. > > I must once again mention that I hold you and your sincere > efforts towards a continued dialogue on Internet governance in > our region in great esteem. And this statement is made most > sincerely because I have known you and your work closely. The > proposed meeting should simply have been named something like > 'an regional dialogue on IG' or some such thing rather than a > regional IGF. In this regard we have the example of EURODIG. I > do hope that such a change can still be made so that it leaves > no room for confusion regarding the nature of the proposed > meeting. > > We should do nothing to contribute to promoting privatized > realms of governance for such an important social, economic, > political and cultural phenomenon as the Internet. We fear > that through privatized governance models for the Internet, > what is really being done is to challenge the very essentials > of democratic thought and ideals for all aspects of our social > life. > > I look forward to hear your response to the issues that I > have raised, and discuss them at as much length as may be > required. However, meanwhile, I may have to take the contents > of this letter to the public domain, since it really is not a > response to you individually but a much larger engagement with > issues concerning democracy and public interest, specifically > about the nature of institutions that can serve these ideals. > > With respect, and the very best regards > > Parminder > > On Thursday 28 April 2011 06:38 AM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: > > APrIGF > Dear Parminder, > > Greetings from Singapore! > > I append below the draft programme for the coming APrIGF > in Singapore. This will be jus before the ICANN meeting. > > > 1. Can you make it? > 2. Can you participate in a panel or chair one? We have > the plenaries as well as the workshops. > 3. > > > Regards, > Peng Hwa > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named > and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended > recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose > its content. > > Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 04:22:06 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 04:22:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] "US aims to block bid to give UN control of Internet" Message-ID: <0a1601cd7087$f77e0720$e67a1560$@gmail.com> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/us-aims-block-bid-un-control-internet-164821847.htm l -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 04:42:15 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:42:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Global Pharma Calls On ICANN To Act Against Online Counterfeits Message-ID: <501A3D67.2090305@gmail.com> [After Global Pharma got WHO to do some work on this, then poor countries realised that that this was an industry driven process, they protested at WHO, and WHO only relented after getting a number of thwacks... I guess ICANN will more amenable given its lack of legitimacy and "can do" spirit...after all it was ICANN et al that contributed to make domain names equivalent to trademarks... for that there is no problem going to WIPO... an UN body... perhaps cos there is money there... not to be crass of course... ] Global Pharma Calls On ICANN To Act Against Online Counterfeits Published on 28 July 2012 @ 2:06 pm Print This Post Print This Post Intellectual Property Watch The international pharmaceutical industry this week released a policy statement targeting counterfeit medicines on the internet. Among the recommendations was for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to join the fight. At the same time, the Center for Safe Internet Pharmacies was launched in the United States, aimed at taking down illegal internet pharmacies. More information about the CSIP is available here . Four research-based industry associations joined together to issue a joint policy statement on counterfeits online. The groups are the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), and Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (JPMA). The groups showed support for governments, law enforcement, the private sector and any others, working to stop counterfeit medicines. And they said, "We call upon [ICANN], which oversees the assignment of generic top level domains and accredits domain registrars, to take appropriate actions and ensure accountability measures in order to protect Internet users from illegitimate online sites that are engaged in the illicit sale of prescription medicines." Up till now, ICANN has been explicitly considered to be a technical oversight body with no policy authority. But the stakes are high, industry says. "Everybody is at risk of counterfeiting," said Eduardo Pisani, IFPMA director general. "Counterfeiting is a crime against patients and poses a public health risk that can lead to treatment resistance, extended illness, disability and even death." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: printer_famfamfam.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From qshatti at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 05:27:45 2012 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:27:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] Call for workshops at the Arab IGF Message-ID: Dear all, The call for workshops at the first meeting of the Arab IGF (Kuwait, 9-11October 2012) is now published at: http://igfarab.org/index.php/latest-news/item/84-organize-a-workshop-within-the-activities-of-the-first-meeting-of-the-forum Please spread the word within your communities. You are encouraged to put forward workshop proposals using the template published within the "call for workshops" document, and send it to workshops at igfarab.org by *31August 2012*. Proposals will be reviewed by a dedicated working group within the ArabMultistakeholder Advisory Group (AMAG) according to the criteria described in the published document. Best Regards, -- Arab IGF Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Thu Aug 2 06:35:42 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:35:42 +0300 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <7FB6AE34-A8CF-468B-814A-5B735A659E20@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <501A57FE.7030601@digsys.bg> Roland, Excellent summary of useful activities that have helped the Internet exist for so many years, despite it's "disruptive" effect on so many things of life and empires-to-be. By the way, I have also noticed an phenomenon that many political people try very hard to not talk to us, as to not hear/see any of this and thus not change their set course... but, the world is small. Daniel On 02.08.12 10:33, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <7FB6AE34-A8CF-468B-814A-5B735A659E20 at virtualized.org>, at > 22:50:40 on Wed, 1 Aug 2012, David Conrad writes >>> (Times of India, interview >>> ) >>> >> >> I will admit I find the level of knowledge demonstrated in the >> responses from a "minister of state for communications and >> information technology" in that interview quite distressing. >> For those more attuned to political realities than I, how should >> the 'technical community' go about improving the level of >> understanding of the basic systems used by the Internet? > > It's relative straightforward, and is done by numerous interest > groups[1] in other fields much more extensively than by the ITC. > > Critics call it "lobbying" but the more enlightened call it "outreach". > > There are numerous outlets for this, one of which is the preparations > and delivery of the IGF, but there are many other opportunities, for > example within relevant ITU groups, at the OECD, at ECOSOC and others > too numerous to mention. > > As far as I'm concerned, one of the tricks is to try to fit in, rather > than stick out. And as one seasoned Brussels lobbyist advises "always > be there, and never be late". > > And I don't mean just standing up and trying to influence the outcome > of meetings (always tempting in a multistakeholder environment, but > doesn't work so well as an outsider at membership meetings), although > that is occasionally a useful tactic if it's seen as constructive by > the other participants. > > I mean briefing and informing the participants particularly rival > lobbyists (some people find that odd, but it works) the government > representatives and where possible their ministers. > > Right on topic, in 2001 I recall taking a newly appointed UK ministry > official on a tour of Telehouse in London, showing him the K root > server box, and explaining what it did (and more importantly what it > didn't do, and why no-one would notice if I were to unplug it for a > few seconds). In the rack next door were some Nominet [.uk] servers > and down the corridor the main LINX suite, so we talked about those too. > > Around the same time I had some formal and informal meetings with the > UK's "Internet Minister" which had a direct effect on the > implementation of some privacy regulations, and across the road I went > and explained to a Home Office minister what a url was (at 8am in the > morning!), so he could be happy about some traffic data definitions > being worked into a new lawful intercept law. > > Between 2005 and 2010 I performed a similar role for RIPE NCC, and > took my roadshow worldwide. > > More recently I've been educating the authorities in the UK about the > harm that comes from Internet trolls and Facebook stalkers, but would > be happy to advise any relevant interest groups on how to raise their > profiles and reduce the level of misinformation in circulation. > > And if you want someone to attend a meeting and put your point of view > forward in a constructive manner, so people say "now that you've taken > the trouble to explain this to us, in terms we can understand, > obviously we entirely agree) I can do that too. > > [1] That's the most neutral generic word I can think of that also fits > the Internet Technical Community. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Aug 2 07:24:28 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 08:24:28 -0300 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> Well, I read this a bit differently (although I would have to read the entire declaration to be sure). For one, ministers in most democracies are not occupying their posts because they have doctoral degrees on the issues of their ministries -- they are basically proeminent politicians of the governing coalition with some knowledge of the issues (in rare cases, qualified professionals on the issues), and ministries are basically run by their high level staff. Secondly, my impression is that he wished to stress the fact that most traffic depends in one way of another on backbones which interconnect via developed countries (particularly the USA) and he is not wrong in this case in defending alternative ways to interconnect Southern countries -- the fact he mixed oranges with bananas does not invalidate this fact. And this is 2012, not 2002/2003... frt rgds --c.a. On 08/02/2012 02:19 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > "Globally, Internet Traffic Passes Through 13 Root Servers" (!) > > > Question: Who governs the internet at present? > > Sachin Pilot, minister of state for communications and information technology: > > "Globally, internet traffic passes through 13 root servers. Nine of > them are in the US, two each in Japan and Western Europe. These > servers move the information. I believe India and other countries > ought to play a much more relevant role in managing traffic flows. The > internet is a global resource whose governance can't be limited to a > particular geography." > > (Times of India, interview > ) > > Excellent, we're back in 2002/3. > > Adam > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 07:31:13 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 07:31:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Well, I read this a bit differently (although I would have to read the > entire declaration to be sure). For one, ministers in most democracies > are not occupying their posts because they have doctoral degrees on the > issues of their ministries -- they are basically proeminent politicians > of the governing coalition with some knowledge of the issues (in rare > cases, qualified professionals on the issues), and ministries are > basically run by their high level staff. > > Secondly, my impression is that he wished to stress the fact that most > traffic depends in one way of another on backbones which interconnect > via developed countries (particularly the USA) and he is not wrong in > this case in defending alternative ways to interconnect Southern > countries but he didn't do that: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-30/edit-page/32924041_1_internet-governance-internet-corporation-root-servers -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 07:35:40 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:35:40 +0500 Subject: [governance] Global Pharma Calls On ICANN To Act Against Online Counterfeits In-Reply-To: <501A3D67.2090305@gmail.com> References: <501A3D67.2090305@gmail.com> Message-ID: ICANN lacks the legitimacy to do anything in this regard. Its contracted parties can possibly do something such as verisign that has taken down a number of .com domains in collaboration with the US authorities on various occasions. The pharma guys are just trying to get some limelight by calling out to ICANN and trying to attempt a bit of harassing the domain community by going to WIPO that most of the times appears bewildered on IG or open access issues. The WIPO itself is yet to face the surges to emerge from the newGTLD process. On the other hand counterfeit drugs of any sort should be countered but its the payment, postal, freight and delivery systems that require moderation and not just Internet. Somebody must tell the pharma people that ICANN is not the Viagara of the Internet or the means to stop counterfeit trade of drugs, its just a .0000001% of the pharma industry's incapacity to keep its business clean and no business by far is clean! Fouad Bajwa On Aug 2, 2012 1:53 PM, "Riaz K Tayob" wrote: > [After Global Pharma got WHO to do some work on this, then poor countries > realised that that this was an industry driven process, they protested at > WHO, and WHO only relented after getting a number of thwacks... I guess > ICANN will more amenable given its lack of legitimacy and "can do" > spirit...after all it was ICANN et al that contributed to make domain names > equivalent to trademarks... for that there is no problem going to WIPO... > an UN body... perhaps cos there is money there... not to be crass of > course... ] > Global Pharma Calls On ICANN To Act Against Online Counterfeits Published > on 28 July 2012 @ 2:06 pm > > [image: Print This Post] > Print This Post > > Intellectual Property Watch > > The international pharmaceutical industry this week released a policy > statement targeting counterfeit medicines on the internet. Among the > recommendations was for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and > Numbers (ICANN) to join the fight. > > At the same time, the Center for Safe Internet Pharmacies was launched in > the United States, aimed at taking down illegal internet pharmacies. More > information about the CSIP is available here. > > > Four research-based industry associations joined together to issue a joint > policy statementon counterfeits online. > > The groups are the International Federation of Pharmaceutical > Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), Pharmaceutical Research and > Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), European Federation of Pharmaceutical > Industries and Associations (EFPIA), and Japanese Pharmaceutical > Manufacturers Association (JPMA). > > The groups showed support for governments, law enforcement, the private > sector and any others, working to stop counterfeit medicines. > > And they said, “We call upon [ICANN], which oversees the assignment of > generic top level domains and accredits domain registrars, to take > appropriate actions and ensure accountability measures in order to protect > Internet users from illegitimate online sites that are engaged in the > illicit sale of prescription medicines.” > > Up till now, ICANN has been explicitly considered to be a technical > oversight body with no policy authority. > > But the stakes are high, industry says. “Everybody is at risk of > counterfeiting,” said Eduardo Pisani, IFPMA director general. > “Counterfeiting is a crime against patients and poses a public health risk > that can lead to treatment resistance, extended illness, disability and > even death.” > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: printer_famfamfam.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 07:41:24 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:41:24 +0500 Subject: [governance] Online registration for IGF Baku is now open Message-ID: Dear All, The IGF Secretariat has started the online registration process for IGF 2012 and the first draft of the Baku schedule has also been posted on the IGF website. Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 07:53:16 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:53:16 +0500 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Alright, so the Indian ICT Minister made a misinformed information blunder on the root servers and Internet connectivity issue to ascertain his country's standpoint but how do you help him out? Maybe our CS and technical community members from India can get in touch with him or do OpEds in the same newspapers that published the story? I see we waste a lot of time ranting instead of countering issues or finding implementable solutions. Why don't our knowledgeable members like Roland, John and your kindself write a brief that clarifies how the root server network works and where are they located and we transmit that through IT4Change and CIS Center for Internet and society to the Ministry. Be part of a solution! Fouad Bajwa On Aug 2, 2012 4:32 PM, "McTim" wrote: > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > Well, I read this a bit differently (although I would have to read the > > entire declaration to be sure). For one, ministers in most democracies > > are not occupying their posts because they have doctoral degrees on the > > issues of their ministries -- they are basically proeminent politicians > > of the governing coalition with some knowledge of the issues (in rare > > cases, qualified professionals on the issues), and ministries are > > basically run by their high level staff. > > > > Secondly, my impression is that he wished to stress the fact that most > > traffic depends in one way of another on backbones which interconnect > > via developed countries (particularly the USA) and he is not wrong in > > this case in defending alternative ways to interconnect Southern > > countries > > but he didn't do that: > > > http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-30/edit-page/32924041_1_internet-governance-internet-corporation-root-servers > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 08:03:54 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 17:03:54 +0500 Subject: [governance] "US aims to block bid to give UN control of Internet" In-Reply-To: <0a1601cd7087$f77e0720$e67a1560$@gmail.com> References: <0a1601cd7087$f77e0720$e67a1560$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Sheer overstated paranoia and coordinated online diplomacy propaganda to ascertain one country only position on unilateral control of the Internet, btw we will continue to read a lot of this all over until WCIT happens. I would have been amused if this was published in Pakistani newspapers, but yahoo....... here where i live..because the country still doesn't believe that there have been positive social, economic and political developments due to the Internet, read the OIC statement read by Pakistan in last year's HRC meeting. Fouad Bajwa On Aug 2, 2012 1:23 PM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > http://ca.news.yahoo.com/us-aims-block-bid-un-control-internet-164821847.htm > l > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Aug 2 08:06:13 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:06:13 -0300 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <501A6D35.2060908@cafonso.ca> Yes, just read the full interview, the focus is basically ICANN and multilateral governance of the Net. Thx, McTim. --c.a. On 08/02/2012 08:31 AM, McTim wrote: > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Well, I read this a bit differently (although I would have to read the >> entire declaration to be sure). For one, ministers in most democracies >> are not occupying their posts because they have doctoral degrees on the >> issues of their ministries -- they are basically proeminent politicians >> of the governing coalition with some knowledge of the issues (in rare >> cases, qualified professionals on the issues), and ministries are >> basically run by their high level staff. >> >> Secondly, my impression is that he wished to stress the fact that most >> traffic depends in one way of another on backbones which interconnect >> via developed countries (particularly the USA) and he is not wrong in >> this case in defending alternative ways to interconnect Southern >> countries > > but he didn't do that: > > http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-30/edit-page/32924041_1_internet-governance-internet-corporation-root-servers > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 08:09:56 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:09:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Global Pharma Calls On ICANN To Act Against Online Counterfeits In-Reply-To: References: <501A3D67.2090305@gmail.com> Message-ID: <501A6E14.4070508@gmail.com> Well WHO did not have a mandate to work on counterfeits. It established a task team, hired the head of BigPharma (industry body) to draw up the Legislative Guidelines, funded "official" WHO meetings with WHO member states, held side meetings at the WHO Annual Meetings, and only stopped after its pants were pulled down on a lack of mandate by those poor countries... see Third World Network if you want a preview of forthcoming attractions. Shameless is the word that springs to mind... Time for techies to get "political", eh? On 2012/08/02 01:35 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > ICANN lacks the legitimacy to do anything in this regard. Its > contracted parties can possibly do something such as verisign that has > taken down a number of .com domains in collaboration with the US > authorities on various occasions. The pharma guys are just trying to > get some limelight by calling out to ICANN and trying to attempt a bit > of harassing the domain community by going to WIPO that most of the > times appears bewildered on IG or open access issues. The WIPO itself > is yet to face the surges to emerge from the newGTLD process. > > On the other hand counterfeit drugs of any sort should be countered > but its the payment, postal, freight and delivery systems that require > moderation and not just Internet. > > Somebody must tell the pharma people that ICANN is not the Viagara of > the Internet or the means to stop counterfeit trade of drugs, its just > a .0000001% of the pharma industry's incapacity to keep its business > clean and no business by far is clean! > > Fouad Bajwa > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 08:19:08 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 17:19:08 +0500 Subject: [governance] Global Pharma Calls On ICANN To Act Against Online Counterfeits In-Reply-To: <501A6E14.4070508@gmail.com> References: <501A3D67.2090305@gmail.com> <501A6E14.4070508@gmail.com> Message-ID: Sorry for the Type there and replacing WHO with WIPO but I do see your point. If you look at the trends in other UN venues this year like even the UNCTAD, the northern developed country pressure remains dominant and the Third World remains touchy........but again, ICANN helping pharma associations has to be the last moot! -- Fooodafied! On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Well WHO did not have a mandate to work on counterfeits. It established a > task team, hired the head of BigPharma (industry body) to draw up the > Legislative Guidelines, funded "official" WHO meetings with WHO member > states, held side meetings at the WHO Annual Meetings, and only stopped > after its pants were pulled down on a lack of mandate by those poor > countries... see Third World Network if you want a preview of forthcoming > attractions. Shameless is the word that springs to mind... > > Time for techies to get "political", eh? > > > On 2012/08/02 01:35 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> >> ICANN lacks the legitimacy to do anything in this regard. Its contracted >> parties can possibly do something such as verisign that has taken down a >> number of .com domains in collaboration with the US authorities on various >> occasions. The pharma guys are just trying to get some limelight by calling >> out to ICANN and trying to attempt a bit of harassing the domain community >> by going to WIPO that most of the times appears bewildered on IG or open >> access issues. The WIPO itself is yet to face the surges to emerge from the >> newGTLD process. >> >> On the other hand counterfeit drugs of any sort should be countered but >> its the payment, postal, freight and delivery systems that require >> moderation and not just Internet. >> >> Somebody must tell the pharma people that ICANN is not the Viagara of the >> Internet or the means to stop counterfeit trade of drugs, its just a >> .0000001% of the pharma industry's incapacity to keep its business clean and >> no business by far is clean! >> >> Fouad Bajwa >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 08:22:34 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:22:34 +0300 Subject: [governance] Global Pharma Calls On ICANN To Act Against Online Counterfeits In-Reply-To: <501A3D67.2090305@gmail.com> References: <501A3D67.2090305@gmail.com> Message-ID: One of the most heated debates within ICANN is related to WhoIS accuracy. The debate has been gaining momentum for quite sometime, and many community members are pointing fingers at ICANN for not enforcing the terms of the Registry-Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RRA) in providing accurate and up-to-date WhoIS entries. Those who violate the agreement terms must be warned and then punished if not responding, but ICANN is doing nothing about that. Recent statistics show that 22% of WhoIS data is updated. Thus, I can see the article from a perspective where the Pharmaceutical industry can rely - partially - on accurate WhoIS information to track down domain names in violation to this industry. IMO, it will remain a pending debate for a long time. Fahd On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > [After Global Pharma got WHO to do some work on this, then poor countries > realised that that this was an industry driven process, they protested at > WHO, and WHO only relented after getting a number of thwacks... I guess > ICANN will more amenable given its lack of legitimacy and "can do" > spirit...after all it was ICANN et al that contributed to make domain names > equivalent to trademarks... for that there is no problem going to WIPO... > an UN body... perhaps cos there is money there... not to be crass of > course... ] > Global Pharma Calls On ICANN To Act Against Online Counterfeits Published > on 28 July 2012 @ 2:06 pm > > [image: Print This Post] > Print This Post > > Intellectual Property Watch > > The international pharmaceutical industry this week released a policy > statement targeting counterfeit medicines on the internet. Among the > recommendations was for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and > Numbers (ICANN) to join the fight. > > At the same time, the Center for Safe Internet Pharmacies was launched in > the United States, aimed at taking down illegal internet pharmacies. More > information about the CSIP is available here. > > > Four research-based industry associations joined together to issue a joint > policy statementon counterfeits online. > > The groups are the International Federation of Pharmaceutical > Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), Pharmaceutical Research and > Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), European Federation of Pharmaceutical > Industries and Associations (EFPIA), and Japanese Pharmaceutical > Manufacturers Association (JPMA). > > The groups showed support for governments, law enforcement, the private > sector and any others, working to stop counterfeit medicines. > > And they said, “We call upon [ICANN], which oversees the assignment of > generic top level domains and accredits domain registrars, to take > appropriate actions and ensure accountability measures in order to protect > Internet users from illegitimate online sites that are engaged in the > illicit sale of prescription medicines.” > > Up till now, ICANN has been explicitly considered to be a technical > oversight body with no policy authority. > > But the stakes are high, industry says. “Everybody is at risk of > counterfeiting,” said Eduardo Pisani, IFPMA director general. > “Counterfeiting is a crime against patients and poses a public health risk > that can lead to treatment resistance, extended illness, disability and > even death.” > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: printer_famfamfam.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 08:28:47 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:28:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] "US aims to block bid to give UN control of Internet" In-Reply-To: <0a1601cd7087$f77e0720$e67a1560$@gmail.com> References: <0a1601cd7087$f77e0720$e67a1560$@gmail.com> Message-ID: The article reads "*The conference set for December 3-4 is aimed at updating a 1998 global telecom treaty. But some countries are using the event to press for a broadening of the scope of the UN agency.*" A slight correction is required where "The conference set for *December 3-14 * is aimed at updating a *1988*...". Fahd On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:22 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > http://ca.news.yahoo.com/us-aims-block-bid-un-control-internet-164821847.htm > l > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 08:29:08 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:29:08 +0300 Subject: [governance] "US aims to block bid to give UN control of Internet" In-Reply-To: References: <0a1601cd7087$f77e0720$e67a1560$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Would never agree less. Fahd On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Sheer overstated paranoia and coordinated online diplomacy propaganda to > ascertain one country only position on unilateral control of the Internet, > btw we will continue to read a lot of this all over until WCIT happens. > > I would have been amused if this was published in Pakistani newspapers, > but yahoo....... here where i live..because the country still doesn't > believe that there have been positive social, economic and political > developments due to the Internet, read the OIC statement read by Pakistan > in last year's HRC meeting. > > Fouad Bajwa > On Aug 2, 2012 1:23 PM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> >> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/us-aims-block-bid-un-control-internet-164821847.htm >> l >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 08:34:00 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:34:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Global Pharma Calls On ICANN To Act Against Online Counterfeits In-Reply-To: References: <501A3D67.2090305@gmail.com> <501A6E14.4070508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <501A73B8.7000301@gmail.com> And let us be clear. There was enough deception about a single root! How many people stood up to nitpick on those points... this is not to say people should not be more accurate, but technical niceties (as with the single root) are sacrificed at the altar of politics. If it is good for the goose then it is good for the gander. And all this talk about taking us back to 2003 etc... that is only a concern if you are under the illusion that there has been forward movement on CIR... so watch the Chinese space on Enhanced Cooperation... The simple point about UN bodies is that even if poor countries fight and loose, they at least have a fair shot... with fair procedures... and reasonable representation... unlike the GAC peonage... On 2012/08/02 02:19 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Sorry for the Type there and replacing WHO with WIPO but I do see your > point. If you look at the trends in other UN venues this year like > even the UNCTAD, the northern developed country pressure remains > dominant and the Third World remains touchy........but again, ICANN > helping pharma associations has to be the last moot! > > -- Fooodafied! > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> Well WHO did not have a mandate to work on counterfeits. It established a >> task team, hired the head of BigPharma (industry body) to draw up the >> Legislative Guidelines, funded "official" WHO meetings with WHO member >> states, held side meetings at the WHO Annual Meetings, and only stopped >> after its pants were pulled down on a lack of mandate by those poor >> countries... see Third World Network if you want a preview of forthcoming >> attractions. Shameless is the word that springs to mind... >> >> Time for techies to get "political", eh? >> >> >> On 2012/08/02 01:35 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>> >>> ICANN lacks the legitimacy to do anything in this regard. Its contracted >>> parties can possibly do something such as verisign that has taken down a >>> number of .com domains in collaboration with the US authorities on various >>> occasions. The pharma guys are just trying to get some limelight by calling >>> out to ICANN and trying to attempt a bit of harassing the domain community >>> by going to WIPO that most of the times appears bewildered on IG or open >>> access issues. The WIPO itself is yet to face the surges to emerge from the >>> newGTLD process. >>> >>> On the other hand counterfeit drugs of any sort should be countered but >>> its the payment, postal, freight and delivery systems that require >>> moderation and not just Internet. >>> >>> Somebody must tell the pharma people that ICANN is not the Viagara of the >>> Internet or the means to stop counterfeit trade of drugs, its just a >>> .0000001% of the pharma industry's incapacity to keep its business clean and >>> no business by far is clean! >>> >>> Fouad Bajwa >>> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Aug 2 08:38:50 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:38:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] Global Pharma Calls On ICANN To Act Against Online Counterfeits In-Reply-To: <501A3D67.2090305@gmail.com> References: <501A3D67.2090305@gmail.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DAFD2@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Good point, Riaz, why isn't _this_ constructed as part of a UN takeover of the internet? Global Pharma Calls On ICANN To Act Against Online Counterfeits Published on 28 July 2012 @ 2:06 pm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Aug 2 09:34:28 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:34:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sha_Zukang=B4s_Good_Bye?= References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD077@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/newsletter/desanews/feature/2012/08/index.html#4524 Any info who will get the job (and a crucial role for the future of the IGF & EC)? wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Aug 2 10:14:53 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:14:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In message , at 16:53:16 on Thu, 2 Aug 2012, Fouad Bajwa writes >Why don't our knowledgeable members like Roland, John and your kindself >write a brief that clarifies how the root server network works and >where are they located and we transmit that through IT4Change and CIS >Center for Internet and society to the Ministry. Be part of a solution! Happy to write something, especially if it starts to dispel the needless confusion between (eg) Root servers and Route servers. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 10:57:34 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 19:57:34 +0500 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: +1 Fouad Bajwa On Aug 2, 2012 7:17 PM, "Roland Perry" wrote: > In message *gmail.com>, > at 16:53:16 on Thu, 2 Aug 2012, Fouad Bajwa writes > > Why don't our knowledgeable members like Roland, John and your kindself >> write a brief that clarifies how the root server network works and where >> are they located and we transmit that through IT4Change and CIS Center for >> Internet and society to the Ministry. Be part of a solution! >> > > Happy to write something, especially if it starts to dispel the needless > confusion between (eg) Root servers and Route servers. > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 11:37:49 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 18:37:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sha_Zukang=B4s_Good_Bye?= In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD077@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD077@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: "Good Bye" to the volcanic and Sha Zukang. He was famous for his volcanic stances at other officials especially - but not limited to - the SG of the UN Mr. Ban Ki-Moon. Fahd On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 4:34 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/newsletter/desanews/feature/2012/08/index.html#4524 > > Any info who will get the job (and a crucial role for the future of the > IGF & EC)? > > wolfgang > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 11:47:14 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 21:17:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Dear Alejandro, Many of these 'misunderstandings' indicate that our policy makers, as also, those in many other countries are misled by anti-Internet lobby groups, in this case this misunderstanding is a reflection of what has been fed by "Advisors" who haven't worried about the blatant inaccuracy of the misinformation planted at the ministerial level. The situation you have described about the Kenya IGF where the IBSA proposal caused discomfort, is another example of wrong advice and strong influences at junior level which sometimes causes people of higher administrative and/or ministerial responsibility to be criticized. In this Kenya and some other instances, it could have been a situation of a lobbyist with an NGO facade earning enough trust to prepare a whole draft in the name of the country. Such situations would indeed change with learned and responsible good people within the administration paying attention to the inner dynamics and paying attention to every word that gets published / spoken in the name of the country. Unfortunately, what has so far surfaced in the name of India does not truly reflect the Indian mind, which is far more sensible and evolved. I would strongly agree with an earlier comment on this thread that the Internet Community has not done enough to disseminate fundamental information on the workings of something as new as the Internet on which not many policy makers could be expected to be experts without a focussed program. While this need is left unfilled by the Internet Community, negative forces are busy with plenty of misinformation by proximity. Sent from Turiya MID http://turiya.mobi On Aug 2, 2012 11:03 AM, "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" wrote: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From valeriab at apc.org Thu Aug 2 11:54:00 2012 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 10:54:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] LAC PRE- IGF 5 /Becas/Grants/Bolsas Message-ID: <6DD180FF-2D90-4429-BADD-6174A8087A3A@apc.org> Dear all, We would appreciate your help for distributing the announcement below among your contacts and networks. Best, Valeria --------------------- (English Below) (Portugues Abaixo) Estimados Amigos: LACNIC junto con la Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones (APC), el Instituto NUPEF, la Internet Society (ISOC) y nuevos socios que se incorporarán en el curso de 2012, organizarán la quinta Reunión Regional Preparatoria para el Foro de Gobernanza de Internet (FGI), a realizarse del 24 al 26 de Septiembre en el centro de convenciones Cosmos 100 de la Ciudad de Bogotá, Colombia. El llamado a Postulación para Becas se encuentra abierto http://www.lacigf.org/sp/lacigf5/becas.html Saludos Cordiales, Andrés Piazza Responsable de Relaciones Externas LACNIC -------------------- Dear Friends, LACNIC together with the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), the NUPEF Institute, the Internet Society (ISOC) and new partners that will join the initiative during the course of 2012, are is organizing the Fifth Regional Preparatory Meeting for the Internet Governance Forum which will be held in Bogota, Colombia on 24-26 September. The call for Finantial Asistance is now open http://www.lacigf.org/en/lacigf5/becas.html Warmest Regards, Andrés Piazza Public Affairs Officer LACNIC --- Caros Amigos: O LACNIC conjuntamente com a Associação para o Progresso das Comunicações (APC), o Instituto NUPEF, a Internet Society (ISOC) e os novos sócios que venham a ser incorporados no decorrer de 2012, vão organizar a quinta Reunião Regional Preparatória para o Fórum de Governança da Internet (FGI), a ser realizada de 24 a 26 de setembro na Cidade de Bogotá, Colômbia. A chamada para pedido de bolsa está aberta http://www.lacigf.org/pt/lacigf5/becas.html Com os melhores cumprimentos, Piazza Andres Responsável de Relações Externas LACNIC ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Thu Aug 2 12:43:45 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:43:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] African CS statement on internet governance and rights Message-ID: <501AAE41.7000903@apc.org> Greetings everyone Last week the Kenyan Human Rights Commission, Global Partners and APC convened a meeting in Nairobi on internet governance and human rights. The civil society groups were from the human rights, media and ICT sectors. Attached is the statement that emerged from this workshop. It was a really good workshop. Several of the participants are on this list so they can add their own perspectives. I felt that we discussed important issues without resorting to too much jargon, or 'knee jerk' responses. People were respectful of one another's views (and there were diverse views) and everyone left with more knowledge and a better understanding of the questions/issues around internet governance and human rights on the internet. Anriette ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Final Statement of the Pan African CS Workshop on Who Controls the Internet_02082012.pdf Type: application/force-download Size: 142676 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Thu Aug 2 12:48:33 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:48:33 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> On Aug 2, 2012, at 7:14 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > Happy to write something, especially if it starts to dispel the needless confusion between (eg) Root servers and Route servers. Err. Traffic doesn't flow through route servers either (:-)). While writing yet another document aimed at policy makers explaining the role of the root servers would undoubtedly be beneficial (and I'd be happy to contribute), the fact that the demonstrated level of misunderstanding currently exists despite the Indian GAC rep being an advisor to the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology may suggest there are larger issues here. I guess the real question I'm asking is how can the 'technical community' most effectively communicate the underlying realities of the Internet to policy makers? Is writing briefs the best way or are there other approaches that would increase the likelihood that policy makers would actually understand what it is they are attempting to create policy for? Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Thu Aug 2 12:52:50 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:52:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sha_Zukang=B4s_Good_Bye?= In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD077@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD077@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <829C14F7-70AF-4492-8C30-ACC94E36B9AE@privaterra.org> Wolfgang, I heard from multiple sources that the position likely would go to someone from Asia, likely China. Robert On 2012-08-02, at 9:34 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/newsletter/desanews/feature/2012/08/index.html#4524 > > Any info who will get the job (and a crucial role for the future of the IGF & EC)? > > wolfgang > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 15:07:46 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 21:07:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> 1. There is a double standard when it comes to technical accuracy. 2. Technical information should not be conflated with socio-political issues - such as legitimacy over the role of ICANN in CIR. This conflation is as abominable as inaccuracies in technical information. 3. IMHO Much of the technical community on this list stands in opposition to issues of legitimacy (basically on the principle - if ain't broke don't fix it - which explains why this list in particular "misconstrued" the Chinese position on Enhanced Cooperation). On 2012/08/02 06:48 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Aug 2, 2012, at 7:14 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> Happy to write something, especially if it starts to dispel the needless confusion between (eg) Root servers and Route servers. > Err. Traffic doesn't flow through route servers either (:-)). > > While writing yet another document aimed at policy makers explaining the role of the root servers would undoubtedly be beneficial (and I'd be happy to contribute), the fact that the demonstrated level of misunderstanding currently exists despite the Indian GAC rep being an advisor to the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology may suggest there are larger issues here. > > I guess the real question I'm asking is how can the 'technical community' most effectively communicate the underlying realities of the Internet to policy makers? Is writing briefs the best way or are there other approaches that would increase the likelihood that policy makers would actually understand what it is they are attempting to create policy for? > > Regards, > -drc > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 15:34:06 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 01:04:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: The root server infrastructure, despite its harmless functions, occupy a recurrent space in Internet Governance debates, their functions understood, or otherwise, for its symbolic value. I have always wondered if it wouldn't be wiser for United States to make a gesture of assurance to the rest of the world by exploring the technical feasibility of locating a few more elsewhere. The Wikipedia article on Root Name Server says that "The choice of 13 nameservers was made because of limitations in the original DNS specification" with a 'why?' asking for citation. Assuming that there is a limitation, could there be other possible gesturegs? Fully Qualified Mirrors? Or, could there be an extraordinary gesture of one of the Universities retaining a Fully Connected Mirror in their premises and relocate the Root Server to an Institution such as the Indian Institute of Technology with transition support for 3 to 5 years? Or, would Verisign Inc do the same to make this extraordinary gesture by shifting the root server to Verisign India or Verisign Africa? The relocated servers would be under the present root server infrastructure any way. It may not be easy, it could be technically complex, and possibly expensive. Even a pretension to add / relocate one or two servers would lay to rest most of the criticism about the unilateral control of the root, read (conveniently by those who archestrate anti-Internet propaganda), unilateral control of the Internet. Sent from Turiya MID http://turiya.mobi On Aug 2, 2012 9:17 PM, "Sivasubramanian M" wrote: > > Dear Alejandro, > > Many of these 'misunderstandings' indicate that our policy makers, as > also, those in many other countries are misled by anti-Internet lobby > groups, in this case this misunderstanding is a reflection of what has been > fed by "Advisors" who haven't worried about the blatant inaccuracy of the > misinformation planted at the ministerial level. > > The situation you have described about the Kenya IGF where the IBSA > proposal caused discomfort, is another example of wrong advice and strong > influences at junior level which sometimes causes people of higher > administrative and/or ministerial responsibility to be criticized. In this > Kenya and some other instances, it could have been a situation of a > lobbyist with an NGO facade earning enough trust to prepare a whole draft > in the name of the country. Such situations would indeed change with > learned and responsible good people within the administration paying > attention to the inner dynamics and paying attention to every word that > gets published / spoken in the name of the country. > > Unfortunately, what has so far surfaced in the name of India does not > truly reflect the Indian mind, which is far more sensible and evolved. > > I would strongly agree with an earlier comment on this thread that the > Internet Community has not done enough to disseminate fundamental > information on the workings of something as new as the Internet on which > not many policy makers could be expected to be experts without a focussed > program. While this need is left unfilled by the Internet Community, > negative forces are busy with plenty of misinformation by proximity. > > Sent from Turiya MID > http://turiya.mobi > On Aug 2, 2012 11:03 AM, "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" > wrote: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Thu Aug 2 15:47:41 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:47:41 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> Message-ID: <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> Riaz, On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > 1. There is a double standard when it comes to technical accuracy. Oh? Details? > 2. Technical information should not be conflated with socio-political issues - such as legitimacy over the role of ICANN in CIR. This conflation is as abominable as inaccuracies in technical information. I think I agree that technical information should not be conflated with socio-political issues, but to be honest, I'm not sure what that means in this context. > 3. IMHO Much of the technical community on this list stands in opposition to issues of legitimacy (basically on the principle - if ain't broke don't fix it - which explains why this list in particular "misconstrued" the Chinese position on Enhanced Cooperation). I would be surprised if this were true. From my personal perspective it isn't so much "if it ain't broke don't fix it" than "let's see the details of an alternative to ensure it doesn't make things worse." However, my question was more along the lines of how can the 'technical community' more effectively communicate to policy makers, not what should be communicated. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Aug 2 15:49:54 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 05:49:54 +1000 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Siva wrote ³. Even a pretension to add / relocate one or two servers would lay to rest most of the criticism about the unilateral control of the root, read (conveniently by those who archestrate anti-Internet propaganda), unilateral control of the Internet.² No it wouldn¹t. Until such time as the US authority to unilaterally give final approval to changes to the root zone is removed, the criticism will remain. Ian Peter From: Sivasubramanian M Reply-To: , Sivasubramanian M Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 01:04:06 +0530 To: , "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" Cc: Adam Peake Subject: RE: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) The root server infrastructure, despite its harmless functions, occupy a recurrent space in Internet Governance debates, their functions understood, or otherwise, for its symbolic value. I have always wondered if it wouldn't be wiser for United States to make a gesture of assurance to the rest of the world by exploring the technical feasibility of locating a few more elsewhere. The Wikipedia article on Root Name Server says that "The choice of 13 nameservers was made because of limitations in the original DNS specification" with a 'why?' asking for citation. Assuming that there is a limitation, could there be other possible gesturegs?  Fully Qualified Mirrors?  Or, could there be an extraordinary gesture of one of the Universities retaining a Fully Connected Mirror in their premises and relocate the Root Server to an Institution such as the Indian Institute of Technology with transition support for 3 to 5 years?  Or, would Verisign Inc do the same to make this extraordinary gesture by shifting the root server to Verisign India or Verisign Africa? The relocated servers would be under the present root server infrastructure any way. It may not be easy, it could be technically complex, and possibly expensive. Even a pretension to add / relocate one or two servers would lay to rest most of the criticism about the unilateral control of the root, read (conveniently by those who archestrate anti-Internet propaganda), unilateral control of the Internet. Sent from Turiya MID http://turiya.mobi On Aug 2, 2012 9:17 PM, "Sivasubramanian M" wrote: > > > Dear Alejandro, > > Many of these 'misunderstandings' indicate that our policy makers, as also, > those in many other countries are misled by anti-Internet lobby groups, in > this case this misunderstanding is a reflection of what has been fed by > "Advisors" who haven't worried about the blatant inaccuracy of the > misinformation planted at the ministerial level. > > The situation you have described about the Kenya IGF where the IBSA proposal > caused discomfort, is another example of wrong advice and strong influences at > junior level which sometimes causes people of higher administrative and/or > ministerial responsibility to be criticized. In this Kenya and some other > instances, it could have been a situation of a lobbyist with an NGO facade > earning enough trust to prepare a whole draft in the name of the country. Such > situations would indeed change with learned and responsible good people within > the administration paying attention to the inner dynamics and paying attention > to every word that gets published / spoken in the name of the country. > > Unfortunately, what has so far surfaced in the name of India does not truly > reflect the Indian mind, which is far more sensible and evolved. > > I would strongly agree with an earlier comment on this thread that the > Internet Community has not done enough to disseminate fundamental information > on the workings of something as new as the Internet on which not many policy > makers could be expected to be experts without a focussed program.  While this > need is left unfilled by the Internet Community, negative forces are busy with > plenty of misinformation by proximity. > > Sent from Turiya MID > http://turiya.mobi > > On Aug 2, 2012 11:03 AM, "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" > wrote: ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Thu Aug 2 15:51:07 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:51:07 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <7FB6AE34-A8CF-468B-814A-5B735A659E20@virtualized.org> References: <7FB6AE34-A8CF-468B-814A-5B735A659E20@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <005b01cd70e8$2dd3c7f0$897b57d0$@uol.com.br> Dear, since I had lots of opportunities to deal with " authorities" with really low knowledge of Internet ( remember Brazil´s positions at GAC some years ago?) I can tell you that the only way is to promote large knowledge/ capacitation programs for the levels below the Minister in the "technical" Ministries. These persons are the ones to tell what to say to their Ministers, so once these levels has enough knowledge we will stop to see " strange" explanations from those "leaders". Best, -----Mensagem original----- De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de David Conrad Enviada em: quinta-feira, 2 de agosto de 2012 02:51 Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Assunto: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) On Aug 1, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > (Times of India, interview > ) I will admit I find the level of knowledge demonstrated in the responses from a "minister of state for communications and information technology" in that interview quite distressing. For those more attuned to political realities than I, how should the 'technical community' go about improving the level of understanding of the basic systems used by the Internet? Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Aug 2 16:01:01 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:01:01 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <005b01cd70e8$2dd3c7f0$897b57d0$@uol.com.br> References: <7FB6AE34-A8CF-468B-814A-5B735A659E20@virtualized.org> <005b01cd70e8$2dd3c7f0$897b57d0$@uol.com.br> Message-ID: <501ADC7D.7040804@cafonso.ca> Data venia, dear Vanda, I do not think that the "positions at GAC" by the Brazilian reps were motivated by a lack of knowledge of how the Internet works. We might disagree with the proposals but not dismiss them on these grounds. frt rgds --c.a. On 08/02/2012 04:51 PM, Vanda UOL wrote: > Dear, since I had lots of opportunities to deal with " authorities" with > really low knowledge of Internet ( remember Brazil´s positions at GAC some > years ago?) I can tell you that the only way is to promote large > knowledge/ capacitation programs for the levels below the Minister in the > "technical" Ministries. > These persons are the ones to tell what to say to their Ministers, so once > these levels has enough knowledge we will stop to see " strange" > explanations from those "leaders". > Best, > > -----Mensagem original----- > De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de David Conrad > Enviada em: quinta-feira, 2 de agosto de 2012 02:51 > Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Assunto: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server > misunderstanding (still...) > > On Aug 1, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> (Times of India, interview >> > _internet-governance-internet-corporation-root-servers>) > > I will admit I find the level of knowledge demonstrated in the responses > from a "minister of state for communications and information technology" in > that interview quite distressing. For those more attuned to political > realities than I, how should the 'technical community' go about improving > the level of understanding of the basic systems used by the Internet? > > Regards, > -drc > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 16:06:35 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:06:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> On 2012/08/02 09:47 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Riaz, > > On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> 1. There is a double standard when it comes to technical accuracy. > Oh? Details? You mean you did not follow the debates as to whether there can be other roots? Karl Auerbach is fabulous on this at his cavebear archive. Mueller also has some interesting stuff. > >> 2. Technical information should not be conflated with socio-political issues - such as legitimacy over the role of ICANN in CIR. This conflation is as abominable as inaccuracies in technical information. > I think I agree that technical information should not be conflated with socio-political issues, but to be honest, I'm not sure what that means in this context. Legitimacy of ICANN should not be conflated with its "effectiveness". > >> 3. IMHO Much of the technical community on this list stands in opposition to issues of legitimacy (basically on the principle - if ain't broke don't fix it - which explains why this list in particular "misconstrued" the Chinese position on Enhanced Cooperation). > I would be surprised if this were true. From my personal perspective it isn't so much "if it ain't broke don't fix it" than "let's see the details of an alternative to ensure it doesn't make things worse." Which in politics is much the same thing. As I said previously the responsiveness of ICANN to "legitimacy' complaints has been far greater than some ICANN "hacks" have been will to admit on this list. Curran is much more balanced and fair here and argues for an evolutionary perspective. Perhaps Parminer (who is often the butt of these kinds of things) may have more details. > > However, my question was more along the lines of how can the 'technical community' more effectively communicate to policy makers, not what should be communicated. Unfortunately "disinterested" engagement on this list is difficult. See posts under this subject header related to anti-Internet propaganda... > > Regards, > -drc > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 15:42:07 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 21:42:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <501AD80F.6050406@gmail.com> ? Is legitimacy being conflated with effectiveness here? Or am I just an anti-Internet propagandist? On 2012/08/02 09:34 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > read (conveniently by those who archestrate anti-Internet propaganda), > unilateral control of the Internet. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 16:10:16 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:10:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <501ADEA8.8070005@gmail.com> David Apologies, I may have been more curt than I intended. Certainly this is something that can benefit us all greatly. And perhaps some level of disinterest would not be inopportune. Riaz On 2012/08/02 09:47 PM, David Conrad wrote: > However, my question was more along the lines of how can the 'technical community' more effectively communicate to policy makers, not what should be communicated. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Thu Aug 2 16:13:11 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 13:13:11 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:34 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > The root server infrastructure, despite its harmless functions, occupy a recurrent space in Internet Governance debates, their functions understood, or otherwise, for its symbolic value. Understandable. > I have always wondered if it wouldn't be wiser for United States to make a gesture of assurance to the rest of the world by exploring the technical feasibility of locating a few more elsewhere. Technically, it is feasible to locate a root server anywhere there is Internet connectivity (and, in fact, with the deployment of anycast instances, this has already occurred, see http://root-servers.org/map/). I believe the issue isn't placement, it is ownership. > The Wikipedia article on Root Name Server says that "The choice of 13 nameservers was made because of limitations in the original DNS specification" with a 'why?' asking for citation. The answer to "why?" is quite simple: the original DNS specification limited the guaranteed supported size of a DNS message to 512 bytes and 13 IP(v4) addresses is all you can fit in a message of that size. While the DNS specifications have evolved to support larger messages, it turns out a surprisingly (at least to me) large percentage of the infrastructure refuses to allow those larger messages (the refusals being largely due to old software, broken implementations, or security policy that mistakenly assumes DNS messages must be less than or equal to 512 bytes in length). As such, we're stuck with 13. > Assuming that there is a limitation, could there be other possible gesturegs? Fully Qualified Mirrors? Or, could there be an extraordinary gesture of one of the Universities retaining a Fully Connected Mirror in their premises and relocate the Root Server to an Institution such as the Indian Institute of Technology with transition support for 3 to 5 years? Or, would Verisign Inc do the same to make this extraordinary gesture by shifting the root server to Verisign India or Verisign Africa? The relocated servers would be under the present root server infrastructure any way. I'm not sure what you mean by "Fully Qualified Mirror". The myriad of root server instances spread all over the world as shown in that map are indistinguishable at a protocol level from each other. 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. > It may not be easy, it could be technically complex, and possibly expensive. It is actually quite easy and relatively inexpensive to deploy a root server instance. I believe ICANN is more than happy to let pretty much anyone run a copy of "L" if they buy a ~$3K server (to ICANN specifications), provide Internet connectivity to that server, and sign an agreement with ICANN saying they won't muck with or limit the data the instance serves. > Even a pretension to add / relocate one or two servers would lay to rest most of the criticism about the unilateral control of the root, read (conveniently by those who archestrate anti-Internet propaganda), unilateral control of the Internet. Unfortunately, I suspect this isn't true. My impression is that the "control of the root" isn't really about root servers, it is about editorial control of the data in the root zone. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Thu Aug 2 16:21:32 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 20:21:32 +0000 Subject: RES: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501ADC7D.7040804@cafonso.ca> References: <7FB6AE34-A8CF-468B-814A-5B735A659E20@virtualized.org> <005b01cd70e8$2dd3c7f0$897b57d0$@uol.com.br>,<501ADC7D.7040804@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A7A16@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Carlos, you are right. It's more that they choose to ignore it than that they don't know. Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Carlos A. Afonso [ca at cafonso.ca] Enviado el: jueves, 02 de agosto de 2012 15:01 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Vanda UOL CC: 'David Conrad' Asunto: Re: RES: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) Data venia, dear Vanda, I do not think that the "positions at GAC" by the Brazilian reps were motivated by a lack of knowledge of how the Internet works. We might disagree with the proposals but not dismiss them on these grounds. frt rgds --c.a. On 08/02/2012 04:51 PM, Vanda UOL wrote: > Dear, since I had lots of opportunities to deal with " authorities" with > really low knowledge of Internet ( remember Brazil´s positions at GAC some > years ago?) I can tell you that the only way is to promote large > knowledge/ capacitation programs for the levels below the Minister in the > "technical" Ministries. > These persons are the ones to tell what to say to their Ministers, so once > these levels has enough knowledge we will stop to see " strange" > explanations from those "leaders". > Best, > > -----Mensagem original----- > De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de David Conrad > Enviada em: quinta-feira, 2 de agosto de 2012 02:51 > Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Assunto: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server > misunderstanding (still...) > > On Aug 1, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> (Times of India, interview >> > _internet-governance-internet-corporation-root-servers>) > > I will admit I find the level of knowledge demonstrated in the responses > from a "minister of state for communications and information technology" in > that interview quite distressing. For those more attuned to political > realities than I, how should the 'technical community' go about improving > the level of understanding of the basic systems used by the Internet? > > Regards, > -drc > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Aug 2 16:29:07 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:29:07 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A7A16@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <7FB6AE34-A8CF-468B-814A-5B735A659E20@virtualized.org> <005b01cd70e8$2dd3c7f0$897b57d0$@uol.com.br>,<501ADC7D.7040804@cafonso.ca> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A7A16@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <501AE313.8050702@cafonso.ca> Alejandro never loses an opportunity to be the delicate gentleman he is... :) frt rgds --c.a. On 08/02/2012 05:21 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Carlos, > > you are right. It's more that they choose to ignore it than that they don't know. > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Carlos A. Afonso [ca at cafonso.ca] > Enviado el: jueves, 02 de agosto de 2012 15:01 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Vanda UOL > CC: 'David Conrad' > Asunto: Re: RES: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) > > Data venia, dear Vanda, I do not think that the "positions at GAC" by > the Brazilian reps were motivated by a lack of knowledge of how the > Internet works. We might disagree with the proposals but not dismiss > them on these grounds. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 08/02/2012 04:51 PM, Vanda UOL wrote: >> Dear, since I had lots of opportunities to deal with " authorities" with >> really low knowledge of Internet ( remember Brazil´s positions at GAC some >> years ago?) I can tell you that the only way is to promote large >> knowledge/ capacitation programs for the levels below the Minister in the >> "technical" Ministries. >> These persons are the ones to tell what to say to their Ministers, so once >> these levels has enough knowledge we will stop to see " strange" >> explanations from those "leaders". >> Best, >> >> -----Mensagem original----- >> De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de David Conrad >> Enviada em: quinta-feira, 2 de agosto de 2012 02:51 >> Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Assunto: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server >> misunderstanding (still...) >> >> On Aug 1, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> (Times of India, interview >>> >> > _internet-governance-internet-corporation-root-servers>) >> >> I will admit I find the level of knowledge demonstrated in the responses >> from a "minister of state for communications and information technology" in >> that interview quite distressing. For those more attuned to political >> realities than I, how should the 'technical community' go about improving >> the level of understanding of the basic systems used by the Internet? >> >> Regards, >> -drc >> >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Thu Aug 2 16:44:28 2012 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:44:28 -0700 Subject: [governance] EFF Pioneer Award nominations - deadline August 6 Message-ID: <501AE6AC.9010905@eff.org> EFF is accepting nominations for our Pioneer Awards through Monday, August 6. Every year, we award three different individuals or groups who have "contributed substantially to the health, growth, accessibility, or freedom of computer-based communications." The contribution may be technical, social, economic, or cultural. Last year, our three winners were US SenatorRon Wyden , the Tunisian group Nawaat.org , andIan Goldberg . A complete list ofpast winners is here. To nominate, click here: https://www.eff.org/awards/pioneer/nominate Best, Katitza -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Thu Aug 2 17:06:14 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 14:06:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> Message-ID: <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> Riaz, On Aug 2, 2012, at 1:06 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >>> 1. There is a double standard when it comes to technical accuracy. >> Oh? Details? > You mean you did not follow the debates as to whether there can be other roots? Karl Auerbach is fabulous on this at his cavebear archive. Mueller also has some interesting stuff. Technically speaking, the architecture of the global DNS fundamentally requires a single root to the namespace. I do not think Karl would disagree with this statement (if he did, he'd be wrong :-)). Where disagreements arise is how that singly rooted namespace is implemented. The easiest/simplest/most efficient way to implement a single root is to have a single entity act as a gatekeeper for all requests for changes. This ensures that there will be no conflicts in change requests. However, there are other ways of implementing the same gatekeeping functionality: you could have multiple gatekeepers that mutually agree to never ever conflict (e.g., "hey guys, I'm going to change X, anybody have a problem with that?"), you could split the namespace to ensure conflicts can't happen (e.g., "I am responsible for any changes that start with X"), etc. Or, you could remove the "global" in front of the DNS and have a myriad of "local" DNS namespaces that people choose based on their whim. The problem with these other ways is they all increase complexity, cost, administrative overhead, risk of collision/confusion, etc. As a result, I believe it safe to say the technically best solution is the single gatekeeper approach. This obviously does not mean it is the politically best solution. >>> 2. Technical information should not be conflated with socio-political issues - such as legitimacy over the role of ICANN in CIR. This conflation is as abominable as inaccuracies in technical information. >> I think I agree that technical information should not be conflated with socio-political issues, but to be honest, I'm not sure what that means in this context. > Legitimacy of ICANN should not be conflated with its "effectiveness". While I personally believe existence and an ability to perform a function does imply some level of legitimacy (perhaps this comes from sitting through too many presentations describing the wonders of unreleased software :-)), I don't think this is particularly relevant to how the technical community can improve the understanding of the technological underpinnings of the Internet. My question isn't about how ICANN can justify what it does, it's about how we in the technical community can get those outside that community to understand "this is how the Internet works". Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 17:24:52 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 02:54:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> Message-ID: Dear David Conrad, On Aug 3, 2012 1:57 AM, "David Conrad" wrote: > > On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:34 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > The root server infrastructure, despite its harmless functions, occupy a recurrent space in Internet Governance debates, their functions understood, or otherwise, for its symbolic value. > > Understandable. > > > I have always wondered if it wouldn't be wiser for United States to make a gesture of assurance to the rest of the world by exploring the technical feasibility of locating a few more elsewhere. > > Technically, it is feasible to locate a root server anywhere there is Internet connectivity (and, in fact, with the deployment of anycast instances, this has already occurred, see http://root-servers.org/map/). I believe the issue isn't placement, it is ownership. > > > The Wikipedia article on Root Name Server says that "The choice of 13 nameservers was made because of limitations in the original DNS specification" with a 'why?' asking for citation. > > The answer to "why?" is quite simple: the original DNS specification limited the guaranteed supported size of a DNS message to 512 bytes and 13 IP(v4) addresses is all you can fit in a message of that size. While the DNS specifications have evolved to support larger messages, it turns out a surprisingly (at least to me) large percentage of the infrastructure refuses to allow those larger messages (the refusals being largely due to old software, broken implementations, or security policy that mistakenly assumes DNS messages must be less than or equal to 512 bytes in length). As such, we're stuck with 13. > > > Assuming that there is a limitation, could there be other possible gesturegs? Fully Qualified Mirrors? Or, could there be an extraordinary gesture of one of the Universities retaining a Fully Connected Mirror in their premises and relocate the Root Server to an Institution such as the Indian Institute of Technology with transition support for 3 to 5 years? Or, would Verisign Inc do the same to make this extraordinary gesture by shifting the root server to Verisign India or Verisign Africa? The relocated servers would be under the present root server infrastructure any way. > > I'm not sure what you mean by "Fully Qualified Mirror". The myriad of root server instances spread all over the world as shown in that map are indistinguishable at a protocol level from each other. 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. > > > It may not be easy, it could be technically complex, and possibly expensive. > > It is actually quite easy and relatively inexpensive to deploy a root server instance. I believe ICANN is more than happy to let pretty much anyone run a copy of "L" if they buy a ~$3K server (to ICANN specifications), provide Internet connectivity to that server, and sign an agreement with ICANN saying they won't muck with or limit the data the instance serves. > > > Even a pretension to add / relocate one or two servers would lay to rest most of the criticism about the unilateral control of the root, read (conveniently by those who archestrate anti-Internet propaganda), unilateral control of the Internet. > > Unfortunately, I suspect this isn't true. My impression is that the "control of the root" isn't really about root servers, it is about editorial control of the data in the root zone. Thank you for taking the time to write a detailed reply explaining the technical answers. I did have an idea, more so from Ian's earlier response, that the central issue is one of what you call "editorial control". I don't expect a political decision on Internationalization of the IANA functions, but US probably knows that these functions would not eternally remain as a DoC controlled operation. In the long term (how long it is is left to the comfort if the reader), US would open up. If not bequeath the functions to a committe of 200, IANA might at least include a few experts from different geographic regions in a gesture of Internationalization. US would know that a posture of total unwillingness causes undesirable moves such as imaginative proposals for a Circus for Internet Governance. As an answer to all these undesirable distractions, why not offer a glimpse of what is to come 10 years or less or more later ? The Fully Qualified Mirror that I talked about is a mirror that is not a $3k mirror of ICANN's specification, but a Mirror with specifications for its infrastructure almost as rigid that of one of the 13 root server instances. It could be a mirror with an elevated symbolic status. The other ideas expressed, that of moving a root server from Verisign Inc to Verisign Africa are with the same purpose of offering a glimpse, conveying an inclination. I still believe that it would make an enormous difference and make it easier to handle the negative overtures. Sivasubramanian M (Thinking aloud, on my own, hats on the hanger) > > Regards, > -drc > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Thu Aug 2 18:48:26 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 19:48:26 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] LAC PRE- IGF 5 /Becas/Grants/Bolsas In-Reply-To: <6DD180FF-2D90-4429-BADD-6174A8087A3A@apc.org> References: <6DD180FF-2D90-4429-BADD-6174A8087A3A@apc.org> Message-ID: <011901cd7100$efded7f0$cf9c87d0$@uol.com.br> My pleasure, will do! De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de Valeria Betancourt Enviada em: quinta-feira, 2 de agosto de 2012 12:54 Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Assunto: [governance] LAC PRE- IGF 5 /Becas/Grants/Bolsas Dear all, We would appreciate your help for distributing the announcement below among your contacts and networks. Best, Valeria --------------------- (English Below) (Portugues Abaixo) Estimados Amigos: LACNIC junto con la Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones (APC), el Instituto NUPEF, la Internet Society (ISOC) y nuevos socios que se incorporarán en el curso de 2012, organizarán la quinta Reunión Regional Preparatoria para el Foro de Gobernanza de Internet (FGI), a realizarse del 24 al 26 de Septiembre en el centro de convenciones Cosmos 100 de la Ciudad de Bogotá, Colombia. El llamado a Postulación para Becas se encuentra abierto http://www.lacigf.org/sp/lacigf5/becas.html Saludos Cordiales, Andrés Piazza Responsable de Relaciones Externas LACNIC -------------------- Dear Friends, LACNIC together with the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), the NUPEF Institute, the Internet Society (ISOC) and new partners that will join the initiative during the course of 2012, are is organizing the Fifth Regional Preparatory Meeting for the Internet Governance Forum which will be held in Bogota, Colombia on 24-26 September. The call for Finantial Asistance is now open http://www.lacigf.org/en/lacigf5/becas.html Warmest Regards, Andrés Piazza Public Affairs Officer LACNIC --- Caros Amigos: O LACNIC conjuntamente com a Associação para o Progresso das Comunicações (APC), o Instituto NUPEF, a Internet Society (ISOC) e os novos sócios que venham a ser incorporados no decorrer de 2012, vão organizar a quinta Reunião Regional Preparatória para o Fórum de Governança da Internet (FGI), a ser realizada de 24 a 26 de setembro na Cidade de Bogotá, Colômbia. A chamada para pedido de bolsa está aberta http://www.lacigf.org/pt/lacigf5/becas.html Com os melhores cumprimentos, Piazza Andres Responsável de Relações Externas LACNIC ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Thu Aug 2 19:38:31 2012 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 19:38:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Great infographic on the new TLD situation Message-ID: <501B0F77.5040600@communisphere.com> This is not a governance issue, but a great infographic about the new TLDs. http://themainstreetanalyst.com/2012/08/01/new-top-level-domain-names-and-the-future-of-the-internet-infographic/ Tom Lowenhaupt P.S. It's from: /The Main Street Anal/ /ys t is publishing news about marketing, social media, technology, politics, entertainment, soccer and life. We pull information from websites such Mashable, The Next Web, Bloomberg, WordPress and many others to add to our own publications. We are not publishing others articles in our name, we link to them and use the technology made available by those publishers./ /The Main Street Analy/st is also the publishing arm of our own Maxus1.com and Soccer is Life!. We post promotions and articles expressing our own opinion about things that might be of interest. Besides of posting on this site, we post on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and other public internet sites. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 19:51:35 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 04:51:35 +0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Giants form new Lobbying Group - Internet Association In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Some of you might already know but if not then here is the US Congressional Internet Lobbying front of the private sector...Google, Facebook, Amazon and eBay jointly formulated "Internet Association" beyond the likes of ISOC or any other group: About The Internet Association Source: http://internetassociation.org The Internet Association is the unified voice of the Internet economy, representing the interests of America's leading Internet companies and their global community of users. The Internet Association is dedicated to advancing public policy solutions to strengthen and protect an open, innovative and free Internet. Here is a more detailed article on the subject: http://www.itproportal.com/2012/07/26/google-facebook-ebay-amazon-join-other-leading-internet-companies-form-lobby-group/ I think this sends out a message to CS too to get more organized and coordinated. Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mousavi.sa48 at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 20:19:34 2012 From: mousavi.sa48 at gmail.com (Mousavi) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 20:19:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet Giants form new Lobbying Group - Internet Association In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5237B7D5-88DE-4903-9E94-08D4B8741D8B@gmail.com> A Sent from my iPhone On Aug 2, 2012, at 7:51 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Some of you might already know but if not then here is the US Congressional Internet Lobbying front of the private sector...Google, Facebook, Amazon and eBay jointly formulated "Internet Association" beyond the likes of ISOC or any other group: > > About The Internet Association > Source: http://internetassociation.org > The Internet Association is the unified voice of the Internet economy, representing the interests of America's leading Internet companies and their global community of users. The Internet Association is dedicated to advancing public policy solutions to strengthen and protect an open, innovative and free Internet. > > Here is a more detailed article on the subject: > http://www.itproportal.com/2012/07/26/google-facebook-ebay-amazon-join-other-leading-internet-companies-form-lobby-group/ > > I think this sends out a message to CS too to get more organized and coordinated. > > Fouad Bajwa > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Aug 2 20:59:02 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 17:59:02 -0700 Subject: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? (was: Re: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?India=27s_communications_minister_-_root_server_misunder?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?standing_=28still=85=29=29?= In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> On Aug 2, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > I did have an idea, more so from Ian's earlier response, that the central issue is one of what you call "editorial control". I don't expect a political decision on Internationalization of the IANA functions, but US probably knows that these functions would not eternally remain as a DoC controlled operation. In the long term (how long it is is left to the comfort if the reader), US would open up. If not bequeath the functions to a committe of 200, IANA might at least include a few experts from different geographic regions in a gesture of Internationalization. US would know that a posture of total unwillingness causes undesirable moves such as imaginative proposals for a Circus for Internet Governance. > I suspect that the various parts of the US Government, when considering Internet matters, are quite capable of recognizing when circumstances warrant a change on how the various IANA functions are performed. After all, the USG has seen the transition from top-down formal contracting for these functions to a more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder management of critical Internet resources, including the decentralization of IP address management to the RIRs, the formation of ICANN, and replacement of the JPA with the Affirmation of Commitments. None of the above would have been possible coming from "a posture of total unwillingness"... > As an answer to all these undesirable distractions, why not offer a glimpse of what is to come 10 years or less or more later ? Why should we presume that such a roadmap should come from the USG, as opposed the Internet community itself? /John Disclaimer: Also thinking aloud, on my own, hats on the hanger... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 21:09:13 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 06:09:13 +0500 Subject: [governance] US will push for open markets, free expression at ITU meeting | ITworld Message-ID: http://www.itworld.com/internet/288237/us-will-push-open-markets-free-expression-itu-meeting Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 01:28:49 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:58:49 +0530 Subject: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? (was: Re: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?India=27s_communications_minister_-_root_server_misunderstandin?= =?UTF-8?Q?g_=28still=E2=80=A6=29=29?= In-Reply-To: <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> Message-ID: On Aug 3, 2012 6:29 AM, "John Curran" wrote: > > On Aug 2, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >> >> I did have an idea, more so from Ian's earlier response, that the central issue is one of what you call "editorial control". I don't expect a political decision on Internationalization of the IANA functions, but US probably knows that these functions would not eternally remain as a DoC controlled operation. In the long term (how long it is is left to the comfort if the reader), US would open up. If not bequeath the functions to a committe of 200, IANA might at least include a few experts from different geographic regions in a gesture of Internationalization. US would know that a posture of total unwillingness causes undesirable moves such as imaginative proposals for a Circus for Internet Governance. > > I suspect that the various parts of the US Government, when considering Internet > matters, are quite capable of recognizing when circumstances warrant a change > on how the various IANA functions are performed. > > After all, the USG has seen the transition from top-down formal contracting for these > functions to a more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder management of critical Internet > resources, including the decentralization of IP address management to the RIRs, the > formation of ICANN, and replacement of the JPA with the Affirmation of Commitments. Who knows this? Who understands this? How many people know that it takes no more than $3k to mirror the ICANN root server? A few among the few thousand ICANN / IG / RIR / ISOC participants. In a world of sensational headlines on unilateral control of the root, all these positive goodness is buried in fine print. The gestures I have talked about would be a visible, graphic answer to the bad headlines. > > None of the above would have been possible coming from "a posture of total unwillingness"... So it appears to the common man, or made to appear to the common man in a carefully archestrated propaganda of misleading 'headlines' that appears to me to be a psychological campaign with carefully calculated omissions. > >> As an answer to all these undesirable distractions, why not offer a glimpse of what is to come 10 years or less or more later ? > > > Why should we presume that such a roadmap should come from the USG, as opposed > the Internet community itself? :-) Sivasubramanian M > > /John > > Disclaimer: Also thinking aloud, on my own, hats on the hanger... > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivarhartmann at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 23:06:42 2012 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 00:06:42 -0300 Subject: [governance] US will push for open markets, free expression at ITU meeting | ITworld In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The problem is that free markets are increasingly hostile to free speech: when companies control the online fora and are left to discriminate speech at will we have a scenario that's arguably just as bad as an ITU-controlled internet. Sadly, because the prevailing notion in American law and politics is that only the state can violate human rights, such a problem will never get the proper framing. Ivar On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > http://www.itworld.com/internet/288237/us-will-push-open-markets-free-expression-itu-meeting > > Fouad Bajwa > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Fri Aug 3 02:48:11 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 08:48:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> Of relevance to the question of whether only UN actions count as enhanced cooperation to enable governments to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues... BD > > Subject: [council] Introducing the GAC Advice Register > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30jul12-en.htm > Introducing the GAC Advice Register > > 30 July 2012 > ICANN and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) are pleased to announce the launch of an online register of GAC Advice to the ICANN Board. Arranged alphabetically by topic, the register tracks original GAC advice, responses from the Board, action items, dates of action, implementation plans and status of completion. The new GAC Advice Register can be found on the GAC website. > > Comprised of national governments, governmental organizations and distinct economies, the GAC is a principal advisor to the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, especially those pertaining to national laws and international agreements. > > The online register was launched through the ongoing work of the Board/GAC Recommendation Implementation Working Group to implement one of the recommendations made by the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT). As GAC advice is received, it is entered into the register to go through an assessment phase while actions and implementation plans are determined. > > All GAC advice preceding June 2012 also is available in the register, but any resulting actions or outstanding items still are being determined and chronicled. > > Learn more about the GAC: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/About+The+GAC > > > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Aug 3 03:58:22 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 08:58:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> Message-ID: In message <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB at virtualized.org>, at 14:06:14 on Thu, 2 Aug 2012, David Conrad writes >Or, you could remove the "global" in front of the DNS and have a myriad >of "local" DNS namespaces that people choose based on their whim. From the end user's point of view, that is already the case. How many realise that calling your http server "www" is just a local whim, and that calling it "m" works just as well[1]. With "m" merely being another local whim to indicate it might be in a lower resolution so that mobiles can cope better with it. DNS is more than the content of the root zone file, and conveying that concept is vital in putting the root name servers into context. [1] eg http://m.bbc.co.uk/news vs http://www.bbc.co.uk/news -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Aug 3 03:58:58 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 08:58:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> Message-ID: In message <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7 at virtualized.org>, at 09:48:33 on Thu, 2 Aug 2012, David Conrad writes >On Aug 2, 2012, at 7:14 AM, Roland Perry > wrote: >> Happy to write something, especially if it starts to dispel the >>needless confusion between (eg) Root servers and Route servers. > >Err. Traffic doesn't flow through route servers either (:-)). Yes I know, but it's another example of almost deliberate built-in confusion. >While writing yet another document aimed at policy makers explaining >the role of the root servers would undoubtedly be beneficial (and I'd >be happy to contribute), the fact that the demonstrated level of >misunderstanding currently exists despite the Indian GAC rep being an >advisor to the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology >may suggest there are larger issues here. > >I guess the real question I'm asking is how can the 'technical >community' most effectively communicate the underlying realities of the >Internet to policy makers? Is writing briefs the best way or are there >other approaches that would increase the likelihood that policy makers >would actually understand what it is they are attempting to create >policy for? I believe I listed some activities that would help. Traditional briefing papers tend to suffer from being like pieces in a jigsaw, and it's how they fit together that needs explaining. To that extent, the paper I've started writing about Root Servers is more in the nature of "the ecosystem of the DNS", which is a wide enough subject to be able to give a picture that a non-techie has some hope of understanding. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 04:04:17 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 01:04:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register In-Reply-To: <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <1343981057.39407.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> GAC Advices & Recommendations were already recorded online, however, the trailing response and follow-up process was not as much as they will incorporate in the Online GAC Advise Register.   I think it is formed to increase the GAC weightage (comparing to public comments) and restricting/ controlling the ICANN Board to follow GAC   Regards   Imran From: William Drake >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Sent: Friday, 3 August 2012, 11:48 >Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register > > >Of relevance to the question of whether only UN actions count as enhanced cooperation to enable governments to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues... > > >BD > > > >> >>Subject: [council] Introducing the GAC Advice Register >> >> >>http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30jul12-en.htm >>Introducing the GAC Advice Register >>30 July 2012 >>ICANN and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) are pleased to announce the launch of an online register of GAC Advice to the ICANN Board.  Arranged alphabetically by topic, the register tracks original GAC advice, responses from the Board, action items, dates of action, implementation plans and status of completion. The new GAC Advice Register can be found on the GAC website. >>Comprised of national governments, governmental organizations and distinct economies, the GAC is a principal advisor to the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, especially those pertaining to national laws and international agreements. >>The online register was launched through the ongoing work of the Board/GAC Recommendation Implementation Working Group to implement one of the recommendations made by the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT). As GAC advice is received, it is entered into the register to go through an assessment phase while actions and implementation plans are determined. >>All GAC advice preceding June 2012 also is available in the register, but any resulting actions or outstanding items still are being determined and chronicled. >>Learn more about the GAC: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/About+The+GAC >>  >>  >>Glen de Saint Géry >>GNSO Secretariat >>gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >>http://gnso.icann.org/ >>  > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > advices. However, what is the balance com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 04:17:55 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 11:17:55 +0300 Subject: [governance] Former ICANN CEO Calls on Hackers to Keep the Internet Free from Regulation Message-ID: http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/28/icann-hackers-regulation/ I wonder what Rod's up to now? Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 04:20:24 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 11:20:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal Message-ID: http://domainincite.com/9845-icann-to-get-8-million-more-from-new-com-deal I wonder if this was the reason why ICANN renewed the .com agreement in favor of VeriSign Inc., causing lots of controversy and question marks within the ICANN community. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Aug 3 04:31:57 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 09:31:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: In message , at 01:04:06 on Fri, 3 Aug 2012, Sivasubramanian M writes >The Wikipedia article on Root Name Server says that "The choice of 13 >nameservers was made because of limitations in the original DNS >specification" with a 'why?' asking for citation. The reason it's 13 (rather than 12 or 14 etc) is very simple, and one of the things I've already listed to include in my paper. Or when they ask "why" do they really mean "why was any limit at all designed in?" Perhaps I'll look into that as well - maybe the answer is "because we never expected there ever to be more than 13". (And I don't mean that as a criticism - I once designed a home computer that could be re-branded and sold under different names, with the sign-on message changing; and I was told there would never be more than eight such re-branding opportunities, so we only assigned a 3-bit field). -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Aug 3 04:43:59 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 01:43:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register In-Reply-To: <1343981057.39407.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <1343981057.39407.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1343983439.10025.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> just completing .....  ........ However, what is the balance of powers comparing with public comments and feedback from other Working Groups, is it not empowering the GAC like veto power on ICANN policies. Regards Imran   From: Imran Ahmed Shah >To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; William Drake >Sent: Friday, 3 August 2012, 13:04 >Subject: Re: [governance] GAC Advice Register > > >GAC Advices & Recommendations were already recorded online, however, the trailing response and follow-up process was not as much as they will incorporate in the Online GAC Advise Register. >  >I think it is formed to increase the GAC weightage (comparing to public comments) and restricting/ controlling the ICANN Board to follow GAC >  >Regards >  >Imran > > >From: William Drake >>To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>Sent: Friday, 3 August 2012, 11:48 >>Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register >> >> >>Of relevance to the question of whether only UN actions count as enhanced cooperation to enable governments to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues... >> >> >>BD >> >> >> >>> >>>Subject: [council] Introducing the GAC Advice Register >>> >>> >>>http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30jul12-en.htm >>>Introducing the GAC Advice Register >>>30 July 2012 >>>ICANN and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) are pleased to announce the launch of an online register of GAC Advice to the ICANN Board.  Arranged alphabetically by topic, the register tracks original GAC advice, responses from the Board, action items, dates of action, implementation plans and status of completion. The new GAC Advice Register can be found on the GAC website. >>>Comprised of national governments, governmental organizations and distinct economies, the GAC is a principal advisor to the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, especially those pertaining to national laws and international agreements. >>>The online register was launched through the ongoing work of the Board/GAC Recommendation Implementation Working Group to implement one of the recommendations made by the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT). As GAC advice is received, it is entered into the register to go through an assessment phase while actions and implementation plans are determined. >>>All GAC advice preceding June 2012 also is available in the register, but any resulting actions or outstanding items still are being determined and chronicled. >>>Learn more about the GAC: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/About+The+GAC >>>  >>>  >>>Glen de Saint Géry >>>GNSO Secretariat >>>gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >>>http://gnso.icann.org/ >>>  >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> advices. However, what is the balance com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Aug 3 05:16:05 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 18:16:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> Message-ID: Keeping in mind that news articles aren't always reliable... Worth noting India is hardly an unconnected country. Tata Communications runs a global cable network, is a U.S. tier one backbone provider. There's a major national neutral interent exchange, NIXI (now run by Dr. Govind who was one of the organizers of the IGF in Hyderabad, ran the ICANN GAC secretariat.) That such a senior govt official from a highly developed ICT country appears clueless about how the Internet works, is a shame. And is exactly what we faced in 2002/3 in WSIS, talking to delegations, explaining Internet basics. What can anyone do to help? Not much, the Indian government has many experts who could brief the minister, if he/his office don't seek their advice then there's nothing we can do. Adam On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7 at virtualized.org>, at > 09:48:33 on Thu, 2 Aug 2012, David Conrad writes > >> On Aug 2, 2012, at 7:14 AM, Roland Perry >> wrote: >>> >>> Happy to write something, especially if it starts to dispel the needless >>> confusion between (eg) Root servers and Route servers. >> >> >> Err. Traffic doesn't flow through route servers either (:-)). > > > Yes I know, but it's another example of almost deliberate built-in > confusion. > > >> While writing yet another document aimed at policy makers explaining the >> role of the root servers would undoubtedly be beneficial (and I'd be happy >> to contribute), the fact that the demonstrated level of misunderstanding >> currently exists despite the Indian GAC rep being an advisor to the Ministry >> of Communications and Information Technology may suggest there are larger >> issues here. >> >> I guess the real question I'm asking is how can the 'technical community' >> most effectively communicate the underlying realities of the Internet to >> policy makers? Is writing briefs the best way or are there other approaches >> that would increase the likelihood that policy makers would actually >> understand what it is they are attempting to create policy for? > > > I believe I listed some activities that would help. Traditional briefing > papers tend to suffer from being like pieces in a jigsaw, and it's how they > fit together that needs explaining. > > To that extent, the paper I've started writing about Root Servers is more in > the nature of "the ecosystem of the DNS", which is a wide enough subject to > be able to give a picture that a non-techie has some hope of understanding. > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 07:01:01 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 14:01:01 +0300 Subject: [governance] Great infographic on the new TLD situation In-Reply-To: <501B0F77.5040600@communisphere.com> References: <501B0F77.5040600@communisphere.com> Message-ID: A nice info graph. Fahd On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:38 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > This is not a governance issue, but a great infographic about the new > TLDs. > > > http://themainstreetanalyst.com/2012/08/01/new-top-level-domain-names-and-the-future-of-the-internet-infographic/ > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > P.S. It's from: > > *The Main Street Anal* *yst > is publishing news about marketing, social media, technology, politics, > entertainment, soccer and life. We pull information from websites such > Mashable, The Next Web, Bloomberg, WordPress and many others to add to our > own publications. We are not publishing others articles in our name, we > link to them and use the technology made available by those publishers.* > > *The Main Street Analy*st is also the publishing arm of our own > Maxus1.com and Soccer is Life!. We post promotions and articles expressing > our own opinion about things that might be of interest. Besides of posting > on this site, we post on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and other public > internet sites. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Fri Aug 3 07:01:59 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 13:01:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register In-Reply-To: <1343983439.10025.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <1343981057.39407.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1343983439.10025.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Imran I wouldn't go as far as to say the GAC has a veto, but as you well know its influence in the process is certainly increasing and becoming ever more institutionalized. I was simply pointing out that while enhanced cooperation may not be occurring within the UN, it is empirically demonstrable that it is occurring outside it, so hopefully we can get beyond the silly binary debate. Bill On Aug 3, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > just completing ..... > > ........ However, what is the balance of powers comparing with public comments and feedback from other Working Groups, is it not empowering the GAC like veto power on ICANN policies. > > Regards > > Imran > > > From: Imran Ahmed Shah > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; William Drake > Sent: Friday, 3 August 2012, 13:04 > Subject: Re: [governance] GAC Advice Register > > GAC Advices & Recommendations were already recorded online, however, the trailing response and follow-up process was not as much as they will incorporate in the Online GAC Advise Register. > > I think it is formed to increase the GAC weightage (comparing to public comments) and restricting/ controlling the ICANN Board to follow GAC advices. However, what is the balance com > > Regards > > Imran > > From: William Drake > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Sent: Friday, 3 August 2012, 11:48 > Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register > > Of relevance to the question of whether only UN actions count as enhanced cooperation to enable governments to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues... > > BD > >> >> Subject: [council] Introducing the GAC Advice Register >> >> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30jul12-en.htm >> Introducing the GAC Advice Register >> >> 30 July 2012 >> ICANN and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) are pleased to announce the launch of an online register of GAC Advice to the ICANN Board. Arranged alphabetically by topic, the register tracks original GAC advice, responses from the Board, action items, dates of action, implementation plans and status of completion. The new GAC Advice Register can be found on the GAC website. >> Comprised of national governments, governmental organizations and distinct economies, the GAC is a principal advisor to the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, especially those pertaining to national laws and international agreements. >> The online register was launched through the ongoing work of the Board/GAC Recommendation Implementation Working Group to implement one of the recommendations made by the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT). As GAC advice is received, it is entered into the register to go through an assessment phase while actions and implementation plans are determined. >> All GAC advice preceding June 2012 also is available in the register, but any resulting actions or outstanding items still are being determined and chronicled. >> Learn more about the GAC: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/About+The+GAC >> >> >> Glen de Saint Géry >> GNSO Secretariat >> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >> http://gnso.icann.org/ >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 07:11:03 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 14:11:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] US will push for open markets, free expression at ITU meeting | ITworld In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The article mentions "*Also at WCIT, Russia, China and other countries may push for the ITU to take Internet governance away from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and other organizations*" Another misconception! Since when did "ICANN and other Organizations" govern the Internet. Fahd On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > http://www.itworld.com/internet/288237/us-will-push-open-markets-free-expression-itu-meeting > > Fouad Bajwa > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Aug 3 07:14:03 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 12:14:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <$DTGyhE7J7GQFAts@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 18:16:05 on Fri, 3 Aug 2012, Adam Peake writes >What can anyone do to help? Not much, the Indian government has many >experts who could brief the minister, if he/his office don't seek >their advice then there's nothing we can do. You don't wait for them to seek advice, you arrange to drip-feed it. How do you do that - assign professional communicators to the task. I met Dr Govind many times, the most recent in London (which was a surprise at the time) but he was very approachable and happy to learn more, which is exactly what I expect. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Aug 3 08:36:40 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 13:36:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] US will push for open markets, free expression at ITU meeting | ITworld In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 14:11:03 on Fri, 3 Aug 2012, Fahd A. Batayneh writes >The article mentions "Also at WCIT, Russia, China and other countries >may push for the ITU to take Internet governance away from the Internet >Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and other >organizations" > >Another misconception! Since when did "ICANN and other Organizations" >govern the Internet They appear to me to govern the processes of issuing new TLDs and address space, and policing some (but not all) kinds of abusive registration. So, as ever, it depends what you mean by IG, and what others think they want to 'take away' from existing stewards. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 08:48:57 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 17:48:57 +0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The financial aspect and opportunities will always be there because at the end of the day, we see a lot of stuff that inclines towards benefiting the domain industry. Best Fouad On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > http://domainincite.com/9845-icann-to-get-8-million-more-from-new-com-deal > > I wonder if this was the reason why ICANN renewed the .com agreement in > favor of VeriSign Inc., causing lots of controversy and question marks > within the ICANN community. > > Fahd > > _______________________________________________ > list mailing list > list at igfarab.org > http://mail.igfarab.org/mailman/listinfo/list > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Fri Aug 3 09:30:55 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 06:30:55 -0700 Subject: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? (was: Re: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?India=27s_communications_minister_-_root_server_misunder?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?standing_=28still=85=29=29?= In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> Message-ID: <4682BA4E-6821-4B55-9508-16475C18DEEA@istaff.org> On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:28 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > On Aug 3, 2012 6:29 AM, "John Curran" wrote: > > > After all, the USG has seen the transition from top-down formal contracting for these > > functions to a more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder management of critical Internet > > resources, including the decentralization of IP address management to the RIRs, the > > formation of ICANN, and replacement of the JPA with the Affirmation of Commitments. > > Who knows this? Who understands this? How many people know that it takes no more than $3k to mirror the ICANN root server? A few among the few thousand ICANN / IG / RIR / ISOC participants. In a world of sensational headlines on unilateral control of the root, all these positive goodness is buried in fine print. The gestures I have talked about would be a visible, graphic answer to the bad headlines. > If you are suggesting the USG needs some help in doing PR with regards to its positive steps in Internet Governance over the last two decades, I would not argue with that... > > None of the above would have been possible coming from "a posture of total unwillingness"... > > So it appears to the common man, or made to appear to the common man in a carefully archestrated propaganda of misleading 'headlines' that appears to me to be a psychological campaign with carefully calculated omissions. > Indeed. I believe that some actively obscure or misrepresent the USG track record in facilitating decentralization of Internet Governance since inception of the Internet. Like many things in this world, it is not perfect, but I do believe that has been an enabler of discussion of open and transparent multi-stakeholder governance which might easily not have otherwise occurred. > >> As an answer to all these undesirable distractions, why not offer a glimpse of what is to come 10 years or less or more later ? > > > > > > Why should we presume that such a roadmap should come from the USG, as opposed > > the Internet community itself? > > :-) > Thanks for raising this important topic! /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Email written at higher altitudes may lack coherence; use at your own risk. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Aug 3 09:51:09 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 10:51:09 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? In-Reply-To: <4682BA4E-6821-4B55-9508-16475C18DEEA@istaff.org> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> <4682BA4E-6821-4B55-9508-16475C18DEEA@istaff.org> Message-ID: <501BD74D.5030906@cafonso.ca> Hi John, indeed, in most countries there is no idea among policy makers. journalists, other opinion makers, even some Internet operators, about how the root works, what is it good for, and what Anycast is and how you can mirror the root -- among many other aspects of the logical infra of the Internet. My view is that this is a promotional task for NICs with the support of their RIRs (I am not saying there are not doing anything). In our recent dialogue regarding FBI/IPv6/ICANN I discovered that some top techies involved with LACNIC discussions do not have a clear idea of what the governance role of ICANN is -- so we might need to educate our machine room people too :) In some countries (I am happy to say this is the case of Brazil) most of these people do not need to worry -- their NICs or similar organizations are way ahead in this, both in optimizing their DNS operations and in going deep in locally interconnecting their networks. But even so we need to do far more in educating the public on how these things work and help them in separating sugar from salt. fraternal regards --c.a. On 08/03/2012 10:30 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:28 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >> On Aug 3, 2012 6:29 AM, "John Curran" wrote: >> >>> After all, the USG has seen the transition from top-down formal contracting for these >>> functions to a more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder management of critical Internet >>> resources, including the decentralization of IP address management to the RIRs, the >>> formation of ICANN, and replacement of the JPA with the Affirmation of Commitments. >> >> Who knows this? Who understands this? How many people know that it takes no more than $3k to mirror the ICANN root server? A few among the few thousand ICANN / IG / RIR / ISOC participants. In a world of sensational headlines on unilateral control of the root, all these positive goodness is buried in fine print. The gestures I have talked about would be a visible, graphic answer to the bad headlines. >> > If you are suggesting the USG needs some help in doing PR with regards to its positive > steps in Internet Governance over the last two decades, I would not argue with that... >>> None of the above would have been possible coming from "a posture of total unwillingness"... >> >> So it appears to the common man, or made to appear to the common man in a carefully archestrated propaganda of misleading 'headlines' that appears to me to be a psychological campaign with carefully calculated omissions. >> > Indeed. I believe that some actively obscure or misrepresent the USG track record in > facilitating decentralization of Internet Governance since inception of the Internet. Like > many things in this world, it is not perfect, but I do believe that has been an enabler of > discussion of open and transparent multi-stakeholder governance which might easily not > have otherwise occurred. >>>> As an answer to all these undesirable distractions, why not offer a glimpse of what is to come 10 years or less or more later ? >>> >>> >>> Why should we presume that such a roadmap should come from the USG, as opposed >>> the Internet community itself? >> >> :-) >> > Thanks for raising this important topic! > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. Email written at higher altitudes may lack coherence; > use at your own risk. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Aug 3 10:54:32 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 14:54:32 +0000 Subject: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? (was: Re: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?India=27s_communications_minister_-_root_server_misunder?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?standing_=28still=85=29=29?= In-Reply-To: <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC994@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of John Curran After all, the USG has seen the transition from top-down formal contracting for these functions to a more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder management of critical Internet resources, [Milton L Mueller] Well, at best, you can say that the USG runs a public comment period, but the contract is drafted by the USG and for the USG. Sort of like the way the ITU is going to listen to online public comment as it does the ITRs, right? including the decentralization of IP address management to the RIRs [Milton L Mueller] Aside from ARIN’s creation, this had nothing to do with the Commerce Department, but was done when the NSF was in control. It’s not likely this authority would be delegated to Europe or Asia had the Commerce Dept been in control. , the formation of ICANN, and replacement of the JPA with the Affirmation of Commitments. [Milton L Mueller] the formation of ICANN was supposed to lead to full privatization after “two years at most” to quote Magaziner, perhaps you can explain to us why that didn’t happen. None of the above would have been possible coming from "a posture of total unwillingness"... [Milton L Mueller] Perhaps he remembers the Bush administration… Why should we presume that such a roadmap should come from the USG, as opposed the Internet community itself? [Milton L Mueller] Because the USG controls ICANN and the IANA contract. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Aug 3 10:57:16 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 14:57:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register In-Reply-To: <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> As a transparency-enhancing move, this is great. If ICANN is going to be jerked around by governments, best to know how, when and where. It also indicates that the hysteria about government control of the Internet emanating from the ITU is rather selective. After all, GAC has essentially the same members and, de facto if not de jure, as much if not more power over the Internet than an intergovernmental organization such as ITU. Subject: [council] Introducing the GAC Advice Register http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30jul12-en.htm Introducing the GAC Advice Register 30 July 2012 ICANN and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) are pleased to announce the launch of an online register of GAC Advice to the ICANN Board. Arranged alphabetically by topic, the register tracks original GAC advice, responses from the Board, action items, dates of action, implementation plans and status of completion. The new GAC Advice Register can be found on the GAC website. Comprised of national governments, governmental organizations and distinct economies, the GAC is a principal advisor to the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, especially those pertaining to national laws and international agreements. The online register was launched through the ongoing work of the Board/GAC Recommendation Implementation Working Group to implement one of the recommendations made by the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT). As GAC advice is received, it is entered into the register to go through an assessment phase while actions and implementation plans are determined. All GAC advice preceding June 2012 also is available in the register, but any resulting actions or outstanding items still are being determined and chronicled. Learn more about the GAC: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/About+The+GAC Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Fri Aug 3 11:09:40 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 18:09:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <501BE9B4.7050408@digsys.bg> I will try to discuss this issue strictly on technical and operational perspective. On 03.08.12 00:24, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > [...] US would open up. If not bequeath the functions to a committe of > 200, IANA might at least include a few experts from different > geographic regions in a gesture of Internationalization. US would know > that a posture of total unwillingness causes undesirable moves such as > imaginative proposals for a Circus for Internet Governance. This is common misunderstanding of the IANA functions. IANA is not a policy setting body, it is a (very) small operational units, charged with the task to make sure the policy is properly implemented and that there is no chaos in the Internet's naming space. The Internet's naming space includes all kinds of numbers used on Internet, from IP address, protocol numbers and names, protocol port numbers, organization ids, MAC address prefixes .. up to the DNS root contents. People often see only the DNS root zone editor function of IANA, but they fail to remember, that IANA is in fact *only* the editor of the root zone: policy is set by ICANN and monitored by DoC. IANA in fact employs people originating from all around the globe. There is however no point to employ many more there currently are, nor is there any benefit into turning IANA into an committee -- because none of IANA's functions have any policy impact. > The Fully Qualified Mirror that I talked about is a mirror that is not > a $3k mirror of ICANN's specification, but a Mirror with > specifications for its infrastructure almost as rigid that of one of > the 13 root server instances. It could be a mirror with an elevated > symbolic status. The other ideas expressed, that of moving a root > server from Verisign Inc to Verisign Africa are with the same purpose > of offering a glimpse, conveying an inclination. > $3k was mentioned, because this is the current price of quality low-end server equipment, that is "guaranteed" to do the task. An root server does not require much computing power, nor (that) much bandwidth -- but it has to work reliably, when operational and therefore should be closely monitored. This is why it is built "to specification" -- to reduce the number of variables and ease the monitoring and administration tasks. As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. Each of these is an actual root server. As good as any other. The technology used is called 'anycast'. Basically, what 'anycast' does in this case is announce the IP address prefixes of the respective root server at an local exchange point for Internet traffic. Everyone who is connected at that exchange points sees this root server 'nearby' and sends there the DNS queries. That local instance of the server then responds. In your example, Verisign can (and probably does) run an instance of their root server at both their 'primary' facilities *and* in Africa (perhaps in several countries in Africa as well). Each of these is the same root server. It contains the same data, answers the same way to queries. There is absolutely no point for Verisign to leave only one instance of their server in Africa, and shut all others, including the one at their primary facilities and all others in other African countries (and across the globe). This will only damage Internet users, and is not worth it, whatever other political benefits it might seem to bring. The 'why 13' limits were already explained. You just need to remember, that each of these 13 can be 'cloned' anywhere in the world and that most of them are in fact and if you need one in your country, it is relatively easy to set it up. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Fri Aug 3 11:12:19 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 08:12:19 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> Message-ID: On Aug 2, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Thank you for taking the time to write a detailed reply explaining the technical answers. I hope it is helpful. > If not bequeath the functions to a committe of 200, IANA might at least include a few experts from different geographic regions in a gesture of Internationalization. US would know that a posture of total unwillingness causes undesirable moves such as imaginative proposals for a Circus for Internet Governance. Out of curiosity, what do you believe would be the function of these experts? The latest version of the IANA Functions contract has gone out of its way to exclude IANA staff from performing _any_ policy role -- the job of IANA staff is merely to execute publicly documented processes. I'm not entirely sure what the experts would do (at least in the context of IANA operations). Oh, and FWIW, last I checked, IANA staff are from Australia, Belarus, Taiwan, the UK, and the US (:-)). > The Fully Qualified Mirror that I talked about is a mirror that is not a $3k mirror of ICANN's specification, but a Mirror with specifications for its infrastructure almost as rigid that of one of the 13 root server instances. To clarify a bit about root server architecture, most of the root servers are made up of some number of commodity servers running some open source operating system (Linux or FreeBSD) and some open source name server (BIND or NSD, although I believe 2 root servers are running proprietary code). In some cases, servers are deployed as single machines that advertise the IP address of the root server themselves. In other cases, a number of commodity servers are put into a rack and a router sits in front of them and the router advertises the root server IP address. There is no rigid infrastructure -- each root server operator makes its own decision about how it will deploy its root server instances. In the case I'm most familiar with ("L"), the initial model was "big router feeding many machines in major colocation facilities around the world", but that architecture evolved to "zillions of single machines in any reasonable infrastructure all over the world". > It could be a mirror with an elevated symbolic status. The other ideas expressed, that of moving a root server from Verisign Inc to Verisign Africa are with the same purpose of offering a glimpse, conveying an inclination. One of the challenges here is that there is no centralized control over the root server operators. Each root server operator makes its own decisions for its own reasons. However, ignoring that, the way root servers are generally deployed (ignoring "B", "D", and "H"), they aren't in a single place. Thus saying Verisign (US) should "move" its root server to Verisign (Africa) doesn't make sense: Verisign's root server already is in Verisign (Africa). What I suspect you're looking for is for administrative ownership of a root server to be moved from a current owner to a new owner outside the US (or for a current owner to relocate from the US to somewhere else). The challenge here is that since there is no centralized control, there is no one to tell one of the root operators "give your root server IP address to (say) Bill's Bait and Sushi Shop in North Korea" and as far as I can tell, there is no incentive for any of the root server operators to voluntarily decide to do this. One could make the case that since the USG operates 3 root servers directly ("E" (NASA), "G" and "H" (DoD)) and has contracted with Verisign to operate 2 more ("A" and "J"), that the White House (being the top of the executive branch) could direct the relevant departments to a few up, but to date, I'm unaware of any concerted effort to make this case. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Fri Aug 3 11:27:05 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 08:27:05 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: On Aug 3, 2012, at 1:31 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > Or when they ask "why" do they really mean "why was any limit at all designed in?" Perhaps I'll look into that as well - maybe the answer is "because we never expected there ever to be more than 13". I believe the 512 byte limit was a more-or-less arbitrary selection that fit within what was deemed to be the maximum that could reasonably be supported in the typical infrastructure of the day (circa mid-80s). It also corresponded roughly with a similar arbitrary limit specified in an earlier core protocol, TCP. Originally, I believe there were only 2 root servers. When those 2 began to get overloaded, Postel asked some Usual Suspects to host more (in the late 80s, I was working at the University of Maryland Computer Science Center when TERP.UMD.EDU (now known as D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET) was set up). The last of the 13 weren't assigned until the mid- to late-90s). However, back when Mockapetris was finalizing the DNS specifications, I suspect the idea that root servers would become political footballs and/or viewed as a critical component of Internet governance would have been seen as laughable, so the idea of supporting more root servers for non-technical reasons wouldn't even have come up. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Aug 3 12:07:53 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 17:07:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4 at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, at 14:57:16 on Fri, 3 Aug 2012, Milton L Mueller writes >It also indicates that the hysteria about government control of the >Internet emanating from the ITU is rather selective. After all, GAC has >essentially the same members and, de facto if not de jure, as much if >not more power over the Internet than an intergovernmental organization >such as ITU. You don't think the facets of the Internet that the ITU might want to control are wider than the rather small subset dealt with by ICANN? Settlement peering and cybersecurity, for example. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 12:58:20 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 22:28:20 +0530 Subject: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? (was: Re: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?India=27s_communications_minister_-_root_server_misunderstandin?= =?UTF-8?Q?g_=28still=E2=80=A6=29=29?= In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC994@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC994@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear Milton, On Aug 3, 2012 8:24 PM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > > > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of John Curran > > After all, the USG has seen the transition from top-down formal contracting for these > > functions to a more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder management of critical Internet > > resources, > > [Milton L Mueller] Well, at best, you can say that the USG runs a public comment period, but the contract is drafted by the USG and for the USG. Sort of like the way the ITU is going to listen to online public comment as it does the ITRs, right? > > > > including the decentralization of IP address management to the RIRs > > [Milton L Mueller] Aside from ARIN’s creation, this had nothing to do with the Commerce Department, but was done when the NSF was in control. It’s not likely this authority would be delegated to Europe or Asia had the Commerce Dept been in control. > > > > , the formation of ICANN, and replacement of the JPA with the Affirmation of Commitments. > > [Milton L Mueller] the formation of ICANN was supposed to lead to full privatization after “two years at most” to quote Magaziner, perhaps you can explain to us why that didn’t happen. > > > > None of the above would have been possible coming from "a posture of total unwillingness"... > > [Milton L Mueller] Perhaps he remembers the Bush administration… [Sivasubramanian M] Thank you for this guess in my defense. But I do not so vividly and systematically track policy developments as to analyse policy / attitudinal differences between one Administration and another, nor between Democrats and Republicans :-) [Sivasubramanian M] It is interesting to read your comments, I agree that it is not all perfect. There is much to discuss within ICANN on further milestones, that are bound to be achieved over time, sooner or later. But there is so much of goodness already, or at least a framework for goodness, which is unknown to most of the world. > > > > Why should we presume that such a roadmap should come from the USG, as opposed the Internet community itself? > > [Milton L Mueller] Because the USG controls ICANN and the IANA contract. > > [Sivasubramanian M] I would agree with John Curran because, in our multi-stakeholder environment, the Internet Community is at liberty to take the initiatives and propose a roadmap. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Aug 3 14:32:03 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 18:32:03 +0000 Subject: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? (was: Re: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?India=27s_communications_minister_-_root_server_misunderstandin?= =?UTF-8?Q?g_=28still=E2=80=A6=29=29?= In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC994@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB17@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> [Sivasubramanian M] I would agree with John Curran because, in our multi-stakeholder environment, the Internet Community is at liberty to take the initiatives and propose a roadmap. [Milton L Mueller] good. Be positive. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Aug 3 14:39:46 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 18:39:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register In-Reply-To: References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > > You don't think the facets of the Internet that the ITU might want to > control are wider than the rather small subset dealt with by ICANN? > > Settlement peering and cybersecurity, for example. > -- Roland, this may come across as a back-handed comment but I can't think of a better way to put it, and my concern is to "put your heart at ease." Here we go: Since cybersecurity issues emerges from a complex ecosystem involving software at the application layer all the way down to the network layer, devices, tens of thousands of autonomous systems, and those multiple services and system are supplied by literally millions of independent vendors and thousands of different standards, the ITU is no more capable of controlling that than it is capable of solving the Eurpoean debt crisis or taking over the world's money supply. Only people who don't understand the cybersecurity problem think we are in any danger of having the ITU "control" it. As for settlements and peering, please acquaint yourself with the history of international telecom settlements and peering from 1991 to 1998, the collapse of the accounting rate system, and the unilateral US FCC intervention that reconfigured accounting rates, and then we'll talk. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 15:12:25 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 00:42:25 +0530 Subject: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? (was: Re: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?India=27s_communications_minister_-_root_server_misunderstandin?= =?UTF-8?Q?g_=28still=E2=80=A6=29=29?= In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB17@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC994@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB17@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Aug 4, 2012 12:02 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > > > > > > [Sivasubramanian M] I would agree with John Curran because, in our multi-stakeholder environment, the Internet Community is at liberty to take the initiatives and propose a roadmap. > > [Milton L Mueller] good. Be positive. Thank you Milton. I am. :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 15:59:53 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 01:29:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> Message-ID: Dear David Conrad, On Aug 3, 2012 8:42 PM, "David Conrad" wrote: > > On Aug 2, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > Thank you for taking the time to write a detailed reply explaining the technical answers. > > I hope it is helpful. Yes, it is very helpful. > > > If not bequeath the functions to a committe of 200, IANA might at least include a few experts from different geographic regions in a gesture of Internationalization. US would know that a posture of total unwillingness causes undesirable moves such as imaginative proposals for a Circus for Internet Governance. > > Out of curiosity, what do you believe would be the function of these experts? The latest version of the IANA Functions contract has gone out of its way to exclude IANA staff from performing _any_ policy role -- the job of IANA staff is merely to execute publicly documented processes. I'm not entirely sure what the experts would do (at least in the context of IANA operations). There is value in inclusion, as it is a function erroneously PERCEIVED to be some sort of command headquarters of the world's Internet traffic :-) It is not known outside the Technical Community that IANA functions are process functions, with policy functions left to ICANN and the RIRs. The openness of ICANN processes and its inclusiveness in its multi-stakeholder framework, together with the inclusiveness of RIRs, offer ample room for participation in IANA policy. But it is perhaps not understood so well by policy makers around the world, especially by those who are not adequately exposed to ICANN and IGF by direct participation. (more below) > > Oh, and FWIW, last I checked, IANA staff are from Australia, Belarus, Taiwan, the UK, and the US (:-)). > > > The Fully Qualified Mirror that I talked about is a mirror that is not a $3k mirror of ICANN's specification, but a Mirror with specifications for its infrastructure almost as rigid that of one of the 13 root server instances. > > To clarify a bit about root server architecture, most of the root servers are made up of some number of commodity servers running some open source operating system (Linux or FreeBSD) and some open source name server (BIND or NSD, although I believe 2 root servers are running proprietary code). In some cases, servers are deployed as single machines that advertise the IP address of the root server themselves. In other cases, a number of commodity servers are put into a rack and a router sits in front of them and the router advertises the root server IP address. There is no rigid infrastructure -- each root server operator makes its own decision about how it will deploy its root server instances. > > In the case I'm most familiar with ("L"), the initial model was "big router feeding many machines in major colocation facilities around the world", but that architecture evolved to "zillions of single machines in any reasonable infrastructure all over the world". > > > It could be a mirror with an elevated symbolic status. The other ideas expressed, that of moving a root server from Verisign Inc to Verisign Africa are with the same purpose of offering a glimpse, conveying an inclination. > > One of the challenges here is that there is no centralized control over the root server operators. Each root server operator makes its own decisions for its own reasons. However, ignoring that, the way root servers are generally deployed (ignoring "B", "D", and "H"), they aren't in a single place. Thus saying Verisign (US) should "move" its root server to Verisign (Africa) doesn't make sense: Verisign's root server already is in Verisign (Africa). > Doesn't make technical sense. Political sense, perhaps. (more below) > What I suspect you're looking for is for administrative ownership of a root server to be moved from a current owner to a new owner outside the US (or for a current owner to relocate from the US to somewhere else). The challenge here is that since there is no centralized control, there is no one to tell one of the root operators "give your root server IP address to (say) Bill's Bait and Sushi Shop in North Korea" and as far as I can tell, there is no incentive for any of the root server operators to voluntarily decide to do this. >One could make the case that since the USG operates 3 root servers directly ("E" (NASA), "G" and "H" (DoD)) and has contracted with Verisign to operate 2 more ("A" and "J"), that the White House (being the top of the executive branch) could direct the relevant departments to a few up, but to date, I'm unaware of any concerted effort to make this case. > > Regards, > -drc > I am rathering talking about a symbolic inclusion of one or two countries outside America and Europe. Formally no one may have the 'authority' to tell a root operator to (symbolically) move, but informally the DoC could suggest that, the Internet Community could suggest that, ICANN could suggest that. The 'incentive' for the root operator would be ample, as it would result in enormous good will and plenty of good publicity for the root operator, if it were Verisign if I could drop that name to illustrate the idea. Google or Yahoo, if they could work out an arrangement with an institution or bid on a contract to maintain a server and send it their India or Africa or Japan subsidiary, it is again enormous political goodwill. These details by you, Daniel Kalchev, John Curran and Roland Perry (Thank You) are vivid and completely dispell the prejudices about root server functions. But the problem is that the knowledge you have shared does not actually get disseminated widely enough. It does not reach the right people in policy circles. If only they could understand how it all began with Jon Postel and how it emerged naturally as expansion through 'usual suspects' ! To convey a fair picture, it would perhaps take an interesting motion picture rather than a document such as the Affirmation of Commitments between ICANN and DoC, even if it were to be annexed by a paraphrased handbook on IANA functions. So it is far, far more easier if we could find a way to say, "Do you want a root server? I will give you one", - without the need for another alphabet - or, pull out a map and show "you have a three or four (equally functional mirrors) in your country already. Tell me if you want a few more." - this without compromizing the Security and Stability of the Internet, or complicating the routing table. Somewhere between the conflicts expressed in the paragraph above lies a solution that has not occurred to us yet. It could emerge by way of a need for extended DNS infrastructure with the delegation of new gTLDs / introduction of more and more IDNs in the root / deployment of IPv6. Why or How is beyond me to answer, it is for the IETF to ponder over :-) Sivasubramanian M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Aug 3 16:00:13 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 21:00:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, at 18:39:46 on Fri, 3 Aug 2012, Milton L Mueller writes >> You don't think the facets of the Internet that the ITU might want to >> control are wider than the rather small subset dealt with by ICANN? >> >> Settlement peering and cybersecurity, for example. > >Roland, this may come across as a back-handed comment but I can't >think of a better way to put it, and my concern is to "put your >heart at ease." Haven't we had this conversation before? There's a difference between "want to control" and "will control" or even "do a useful job if put in control". ps. Regarding settlement peering, look at D.50 for an agenda that just won't die. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Fri Aug 3 19:40:00 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 19:40:00 -0400 Subject: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? (was: Re: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?India=27s_communications_minister_-_root_server_misunder?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?standing_=28still=85=29=29?= In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC994@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC994@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1ADD48F6-FFA6-48ED-8992-4AA4B5C6932E@istaff.org> On Aug 3, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of John Curran > > After all, the USG has seen the transition from top-down formal contracting for these > functions to a more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder management of critical Internet > resources, > [Milton L Mueller] Well, at best, you can say that the USG runs a public comment period, but the contract is drafted by the USG and for the USG. Sort of like the way the ITU is going to listen to online public comment as it does the ITRs, right? Milton - I don't see the USG making policy for DNS names or IP address management, and yet setting such policy was definitely done in long past by folks operating under USG contracts. Policy development is now undertaken by multi-stakeholder participants in the community. Are you aware of critical Internet resource policy being set by USG via its unique IANA contract relationship? > including the decentralization of IP address management to the RIRs > [Milton L Mueller] Aside from ARIN’s creation, this had nothing to do with the Commerce Department, but was done when the NSF was in control. It’s not likely this authority would be delegated to Europe or Asia had the Commerce Dept been in control. With respect to your question about DoC, it's hard to predict outcomes of hypothetical scenarios (e.g. whether DoC would have delegated outside US) I'll note that within USG there has always been some level of coordination of Internet issues (e.g. Federal Network Council, Interagency TF, etc); I do not believe that attributing the evolution in critical Internet resource management over 20 years to any one US department would accurately reflect what happened. > , the formation of ICANN, and replacement of the JPA with the Affirmation of Commitments. > [Milton L Mueller] the formation of ICANN was supposed to lead to full privatization after “two years at most” to quote Magaziner, perhaps you can explain to us why that didn’t happen. Not my job to address such; I was simply pointing out that it is not quite appropriate to suggest that the USG has come from "a posture of total unwillingness", and if it were indeed true, these functions would be still performed under policy set by the USG. > Why should we presume that such a roadmap should come from the USG, as opposed the Internet community itself? > [Milton L Mueller] Because the USG controls ICANN and the IANA contract. All the more reason for the community to come to consensus on how this should evolve, and propose such to the USG. There is no any particular reason for the USG to change the status quo (and frankly, I'm not certain why the global Internet community should or would accept a USG-proposed roadmap in any case...) FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Reality wins. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 20:38:42 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 05:38:42 +0500 Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register In-Reply-To: References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: There also something called giving the wrong idea or giving ideas. Some countries like following by example. On a desperate and separate note, some countries nearer to my part of the world have quietly put in policies quietly through non public directives for censorship, filtering, blocking and DPI surveillance wahay before they announced preparation for WCIT/ITRs. For us from this part of the world, the real threat is no more the WCIT/ITR recommendations but what are countries doing prior to influence and ascertain their positions and proposals. We can rant about IGF's lack of outcomes, IBSA, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, UN Centric Internet Control and Policing, ITU and WCIT/ITRs, educating ministers, unilateral propaganda behind a limited IG issue but the reality is that Internet Access Denied is happening behind the curtains, a submarine cable termination points on to the national trunks, US and Canadian companies are selling heaps of surveillance software and hardware for DPI in the name of cyber security but we are engrossed in gacs and lack of routing knowledge. When do we set our concerns straight? Fouad Bajwa On Aug 4, 2012 2:05 AM, "Roland Perry" wrote: > In message <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01E**CD21DCB2F at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.** > syr.edu <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>>, > at 18:39:46 on Fri, 3 Aug 2012, Milton L Mueller writes > >> You don't think the facets of the Internet that the ITU might want to >>> control are wider than the rather small subset dealt with by ICANN? >>> >>> Settlement peering and cybersecurity, for example. >>> >> >> Roland, this may come across as a back-handed comment but I can't >> think of a better way to put it, and my concern is to "put your >> heart at ease." >> > > Haven't we had this conversation before? There's a difference between > "want to control" and "will control" or even "do a useful job if put in > control". > > ps. Regarding settlement peering, look at D.50 for an agenda that just > won't die. > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 03:25:04 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 09:25:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? In-Reply-To: <4682BA4E-6821-4B55-9508-16475C18DEEA@istaff.org> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> <4682BA4E-6821-4B55-9508-16475C18DEEA@istaff.org> Message-ID: <501CCE50.1070503@gmail.com> On 2012/08/03 03:30 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:28 PM, Sivasubramanian M > wrote: >> >> On Aug 3, 2012 6:29 AM, "John Curran" > > wrote: >> >> > After all, the USG has seen the transition from top-down formal >> contracting for these >> > functions to a more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder management of >> critical Internet >> > resources, including the decentralization of IP address management >> to the RIRs, the >> > formation of ICANN, and replacement of the JPA with the Affirmation >> of Commitments. >> >> Who knows this? Who understands this? How many people know that it >> takes no more than $3k to mirror the ICANN root server? A few among >> the few thousand ICANN / IG / RIR / ISOC participants. In a world of >> sensational headlines on unilateral control of the root, all these >> positive goodness is buried in fine print. The gestures I have >> talked about would be a visible, graphic answer to the bad headlines. >> > If you are suggesting the USG needs some help in doing PR with regards > to its positive > steps in Internet Governance over the last two decades, I would not > argue with that... PR is one thing. Disinterested discourse in civil society is quite another. There are many who take an ICANN line, defending the "faith" - and are try to be more Catholic than the pope. Effectiveness arguments are INSUFFICIENT regarding claims of legitimacy. And of course in civil society ICANN "loyalists" (paid hacks or genuine believers) are overal IMHO rather coarse and vulgar bunch (needs be said). So there PR is one thing, and civil society engagement (based on reason - which is not too high a standard to cope with diversity) another. >> > None of the above would have been possible coming from "a posture >> of total unwillingness"... >> >> So it appears to the common man, or made to appear to the common man >> in a carefully archestrated propaganda of misleading 'headlines' >> that appears to me to be a psychological campaign with carefully >> calculated omissions. >> > Indeed. I believe that some actively obscure or misrepresent the USG > track record in > facilitating decentralization of Internet Governance since inception > of the Internet. Like > many things in this world, it is not perfect, but I do believe that > has been an enabler of > discussion of open and transparent multi-stakeholder governance which > might easily not > have otherwise occurred. Ah but one cannot just take a single type of approach to this. Dialectically (in the Hegelian sense) MSG has been seen by some as a good alternative to actually doing something about the legitimacy issue. Name calling (anti-Internet propaganda sounds so similar to "there can be only one root") has been the forte of the coarse and vulgar, and ab initio takes the wind out of the sails of any genuine engagement/arguments. >> >> As an answer to all these undesirable distractions, why not offer >> a glimpse of what is to come 10 years or less or more later ? >> > >> > >> > Why should we presume that such a roadmap should come from the USG, >> as opposed >> > the Internet community itself? >> >> :-) >> > Thanks for raising this important topic! The issue is that the combined might (i.e. power) of USG, ICANN (employees, hacks & believers & wannabe's) in an MSG institutional setting (where scant regard is given for corporate domination - perhaps because of the "quaint" definition of "private sector" in the US that includes both non-profit and for-profit) kinda makes it hard to have a civilised reasonable discussion about these topics. Yeah, people engage up to a point... so this needs to be said - just so that there is no doubt: if one does not conflate technical (effectiveness) with social then the legitimacy argument has and continues to have merit. And issues of where is your evidence or technical precision, are often (not always) raised, but NOT as a means to deal with the issue - but to fob it off. Now some on this list may present themselves as playing the game (because that is how the game is played)... not all are convinced by that wonderful alleged Bushism (elected 2x btw;), you can fool some of the people some of the time and those are the ones you should concentrate on. While some/few (in case there are others of my persuasion - but speaking for myself only) of us know our relative powerless, and very aware of the sophisticated hounding of our views, _we do believe in the reality of choice_, and engagement to bring about changes in an evolutionary way... so the real test will be weather these communication of technical details can actually stand up to being "neutral" in terms of legitimacy... after all Cassandra did warn about the Trojan Horse... > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. Email written at higher altitudes may > lack coherence; > use at your own risk. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 03:07:53 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 09:07:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> This can be understood in terms of path dependency as well as Public Choice theory... at some level of abstraction. On 2012/08/03 02:48 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > The financial aspect and opportunities will always be there because at > the end of the day, we see a lot of stuff that inclines towards > benefiting the domain industry. > > Best > > Fouad > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh > wrote: >> http://domainincite.com/9845-icann-to-get-8-million-more-from-new-com-deal >> >> I wonder if this was the reason why ICANN renewed the .com agreement in >> favor of VeriSign Inc., causing lots of controversy and question marks >> within the ICANN community. >> >> Fahd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> list mailing list >> list at igfarab.org >> http://mail.igfarab.org/mailman/listinfo/list >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Sat Aug 4 13:25:39 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 17:25:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> References: ,<501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Riaz, I can tell you from my eight years tenure in the ICANN Board that once the sustainability of the organization was achieved, the terms of contracts like the ones with Verisign were analyzed by the Board on a very principled basis. Their budgetary impact for ICANN itself was never a primary consideration. >From knowledge of present Directors I tend to presume mostly a similar trend. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] Enviado el: sábado, 04 de agosto de 2012 02:07 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Fouad Bajwa Asunto: Re: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal This can be understood in terms of path dependency as well as Public Choice theory... at some level of abstraction. On 2012/08/03 02:48 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > The financial aspect and opportunities will always be there because at > the end of the day, we see a lot of stuff that inclines towards > benefiting the domain industry. > > Best > > Fouad > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh > wrote: >> http://domainincite.com/9845-icann-to-get-8-million-more-from-new-com-deal >> >> I wonder if this was the reason why ICANN renewed the .com agreement in >> favor of VeriSign Inc., causing lots of controversy and question marks >> within the ICANN community. >> >> Fahd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> list mailing list >> list at igfarab.org >> http://mail.igfarab.org/mailman/listinfo/list >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Sat Aug 4 13:34:31 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 17:34:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? In-Reply-To: <501CCE50.1070503@gmail.com> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> <4682BA4E-6821-4B55-9508-16475C18DEEA@istaff.org>,<501CCE50.1070503@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA725@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Riaz, it is interesting that in the same breath in which you call a number of people a "coarse and vulgar bunch", in ways that make it difficult to separate those you mean to debase from those you don't, you choose to characterize some subset of people as "more Catholic than the Pope", "coarse and vulgar", and other terms which you may guess some might find between inadequate and offensive. Where there may be a flaw in your argumentation is, interestingly, where opportunity for real dialog lies. You may imagine that positions like the ones you often present, and their delivery, are equally alienating to others. One of them - and this one may cut both ways - is the creation of a Feindbild, in which A assumes that B is X just because a part of his/her positions are like some of X, sound like part of X, or are conflated in the reader's minds to be like X. When that happens each of us may be "seeing red" and not noticing important parts of the conversation, such as people being equally committed to build a system and to fix its faults. One instance would be people trying to carry on the task of building ICANN, yet keeping it within size and mission, and trying their best to solve the flaws of asymmetric USG power. Tell me what I may be seeing wrong, in a similar way, in your position, that can open up a dialogue and throw down or at least soften the walls of the tunnel situation in which we land again and again. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] Enviado el: sábado, 04 de agosto de 2012 02:25 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; John Curran Asunto: [governance] Re: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? On 2012/08/03 03:30 PM, John Curran wrote: On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:28 PM, Sivasubramanian M > wrote: On Aug 3, 2012 6:29 AM, "John Curran" > wrote: > After all, the USG has seen the transition from top-down formal contracting for these > functions to a more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder management of critical Internet > resources, including the decentralization of IP address management to the RIRs, the > formation of ICANN, and replacement of the JPA with the Affirmation of Commitments. Who knows this? Who understands this? How many people know that it takes no more than $3k to mirror the ICANN root server? A few among the few thousand ICANN / IG / RIR / ISOC participants. In a world of sensational headlines on unilateral control of the root, all these positive goodness is buried in fine print. The gestures I have talked about would be a visible, graphic answer to the bad headlines. If you are suggesting the USG needs some help in doing PR with regards to its positive steps in Internet Governance over the last two decades, I would not argue with that... PR is one thing. Disinterested discourse in civil society is quite another. There are many who take an ICANN line, defending the "faith" - and are try to be more Catholic than the pope. Effectiveness arguments are INSUFFICIENT regarding claims of legitimacy. And of course in civil society ICANN "loyalists" (paid hacks or genuine believers) are overal IMHO rather coarse and vulgar bunch (needs be said). So there PR is one thing, and civil society engagement (based on reason - which is not too high a standard to cope with diversity) another. > None of the above would have been possible coming from "a posture of total unwillingness"... So it appears to the common man, or made to appear to the common man in a carefully archestrated propaganda of misleading 'headlines' that appears to me to be a psychological campaign with carefully calculated omissions. Indeed. I believe that some actively obscure or misrepresent the USG track record in facilitating decentralization of Internet Governance since inception of the Internet. Like many things in this world, it is not perfect, but I do believe that has been an enabler of discussion of open and transparent multi-stakeholder governance which might easily not have otherwise occurred. Ah but one cannot just take a single type of approach to this. Dialectically (in the Hegelian sense) MSG has been seen by some as a good alternative to actually doing something about the legitimacy issue. Name calling (anti-Internet propaganda sounds so similar to "there can be only one root") has been the forte of the coarse and vulgar, and ab initio takes the wind out of the sails of any genuine engagement/arguments. >> As an answer to all these undesirable distractions, why not offer a glimpse of what is to come 10 years or less or more later ? > > > Why should we presume that such a roadmap should come from the USG, as opposed > the Internet community itself? :-) Thanks for raising this important topic! The issue is that the combined might (i.e. power) of USG, ICANN (employees, hacks & believers & wannabe's) in an MSG institutional setting (where scant regard is given for corporate domination - perhaps because of the "quaint" definition of "private sector" in the US that includes both non-profit and for-profit) kinda makes it hard to have a civilised reasonable discussion about these topics. Yeah, people engage up to a point... so this needs to be said - just so that there is no doubt: if one does not conflate technical (effectiveness) with social then the legitimacy argument has and continues to have merit. And issues of where is your evidence or technical precision, are often (not always) raised, but NOT as a means to deal with the issue - but to fob it off. Now some on this list may present themselves as playing the game (because that is how the game is played)... not all are convinced by that wonderful alleged Bushism (elected 2x btw;), you can fool some of the people some of the time and those are the ones you should concentrate on. While some/few (in case there are others of my persuasion - but speaking for myself only) of us know our relative powerless, and very aware of the sophisticated hounding of our views, we do believe in the reality of choice, and engagement to bring about changes in an evolutionary way... so the real test will be weather these communication of technical details can actually stand up to being "neutral" in terms of legitimacy... after all Cassandra did warn about the Trojan Horse... /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Email written at higher altitudes may lack coherence; use at your own risk. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 14:13:45 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 21:13:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Alejandro, while I have no negative stance against the ICANN board or any board member in particular, there remains two unanswered questions for me: 1. How did the board approve .xxx while the community was against it. 2. How did the board approve the New gTLD program while many answers and concerns were unanswered. Even after the program was launched, the "TAS glitch" caused lots of controversy. Even worst, ICANN is talking about the next New gTLD round (initially planed for 2013) when current issues have not been resolved yet. What makes things even worst is that many board members (in their capacity as employers of their respective firms) benifited their respective employers with the approval of the New gTLD program. Even more, some past board members jumped to greener shores with business ventures elsewhere (and I am sure you know what I exactly mean). After all, shouldn't the board work in the best of the "Public Interest"? Fahd On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Riaz, > > I can tell you from my eight years tenure in the ICANN Board that once the > sustainability of the organization was achieved, the terms of contracts > like the ones with Verisign were analyzed by the Board on a very principled > basis. Their budgetary impact for ICANN itself was never a primary > consideration. > > From knowledge of present Directors I tend to presume mostly a similar > trend. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob [ > riaz.tayob at gmail.com] > Enviado el: sábado, 04 de agosto de 2012 02:07 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Fouad Bajwa > Asunto: Re: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from > New .com Deal > > This can be understood in terms of path dependency as well as Public > Choice theory... at some level of abstraction. > > > On 2012/08/03 02:48 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > The financial aspect and opportunities will always be there because at > > the end of the day, we see a lot of stuff that inclines towards > > benefiting the domain industry. > > > > Best > > > > Fouad > > > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh > > wrote: > >> > http://domainincite.com/9845-icann-to-get-8-million-more-from-new-com-deal > >> > >> I wonder if this was the reason why ICANN renewed the .com agreement in > >> favor of VeriSign Inc., causing lots of controversy and question marks > >> within the ICANN community. > >> > >> Fahd > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> list mailing list > >> list at igfarab.org > >> http://mail.igfarab.org/mailman/listinfo/list > >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 15:43:51 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 07:43:51 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > Alejandro, while I have no negative stance against the ICANN board or any > board member in particular, there remains two unanswered questions for me: > > 1. How did the board approve .xxx while the community was against it. > > To examine and analyse this discretionary power and authority one has to go to the ICANN By laws. Is the Board obliged to accept the advice of Advisory Committees or do they have their own discretionary capacity. > > 1. How did the board approve the New gTLD program while many answers > and concerns were unanswered. Even after the program was launched, the "TAS > glitch" caused lots of controversy. Even worst, ICANN is talking about the > next New gTLD round (initially planed for 2013) when current issues have > not been resolved yet. > > If you revisit the Transcripts of the ICANN Meeting in Singapore, there was one sole dissenter (I could be wrong, maybe there were two, it would be worthwhile to check) and the lone dissenter raised objections with his rationale. However at the same time, to be fair the commercial world thrives on risks and the Board in this instance had the ultimate discretion to make the call. The obligation to manage and mitigate the risks is another issue. There is a delicate balance between listening to the community and feedback and making decisions. I still recall Tina Dam raising at the San Jose meeting her reservations about "Digital Archery" which was ultimately scrapped. However, one thing must be said is that ICANN is a community that is open and you can write or make submissions as an "affected party". For Governments, the GAC, for non- commercial stakeholders and At Large. There are other avenues other than commercial stakeholders where people can raise their concerns. One of the remarkable things about the current Board is that they are also going out of their way to extract feedback from the global community. They are also bound by core values within the ICANN By Laws and if people are not happy with how this is unfolding, then there are mechanisms in place to raise these concerns etc. What makes things even worst is that many board members (in their capacity > as employers of their respective firms) benifited their respective > employers with the approval of the New gTLD program. Even more, some past > board members jumped to greener shores with business ventures elsewhere > (and I am sure you know what I exactly mean). > > Yes, that literally enraged the wider global community in terms of "conflict of interest" management. The reality is that situation boiled down to personal integrity and ethics as legally. This was of course through rigorous consultations with the global community addressed so that it never happens again. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 15:52:20 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 07:52:20 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Slight edits: Fahd: What makes things even worst is that many board members (in their capacity as employers of their respective firms) benifited their respective employers with the approval of the New gTLD program. Even more, some past board members jumped to greener shores with business ventures elsewhere (and I am sure you know what I exactly mean). Sal: Yes, that literally enraged the wider global community in terms of "conflict of interest" management. The reality is that situation boiled down to personal integrity and ethics as there was nothing in writing concerning that specific situation. This was of course addressed through rigorous consultations with the global community so that it never happens again. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 15:57:07 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 00:57:07 +0500 Subject: [governance] In Interview, Romney Brings Arab Spring Into Presidential Race - NYTimes.com Message-ID: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/in-interview-romney-brings-arab-spring-into-presidential-race/ This is going to be soul food for the Arab IGF I suppose. Fouad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 16:01:34 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 08:01:34 +1200 Subject: [governance] In Interview, Romney Brings Arab Spring Into Presidential Race - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/in-interview-romney-brings-arab-spring-into-presidential-race/ > > This is going to be soul food for the Arab IGF I suppose. > Having being at a recent Pacific Broadband Forum organised by the ITU in Fiji which followed the APT meeting. I was surprised to hear the Republic of Marshall Islands (RMI) talk about how the Arab Spring affected ICT development in RMI. ;) (chuckling) > Fouad > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From eiriarte at alfa-redi.org Sat Aug 4 16:16:12 2012 From: eiriarte at alfa-redi.org (Erick Iriarte Ahon) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:16:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Congreso del Peru puede aprobar ley contra el #internetlibre by E.Iriarte References: <99FCE172-08AF-4FB3-8247-3CCC924655DC@alfa-redi.org> Message-ID: FYI Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > De: Erick Iriarte Ahon > Fecha: 3 de agosto de 2012 17:54:31 GMT-05:00 > Para: "Peru Digital: Espacio de Dialogo para un Peru Digital" , "Foro de Derecho Informático." > Cc: LatinoamerICANN LatinoamerICANN > Asunto: Congreso del Peru puede aprobar ley contra el #internetlibre by E.Iriarte > > Fuente: http://lexdigitalis.lamula.pe/2012/08/03/congreso-del-peru-puede-aprobar-ley-contra-el-internetlibre-by-e-iriarte/lexdigitalis > > Congreso del Peru puede aprobar ley contra el #internetlibre by E.Iriarte > > "El hacha sirve para cortar cabezas; pero también la utilizamos para cortar árboles y hacer casas con su madera. Has de aprender a descubrir lo mucho bueno que hay en lo malo y lo malísimo que puede resultar lo bueno. El dulce azúcar puede hacernos daño y el asqueroso ricino nos puede curar." Don Cesar de Echague by Jose Marllorquí > > El Dictamen de la Comisión de Justicia y Derechos Humanos recaído en los Proyectos de Ley 034/2011-CR, 307/2011-CR y 1136/2011-CR con un texto sustitutorio por el que se propone la Ley de los delitos informáticos, publicado con fecha 20 de Julio [ver: http://www2.congreso.gob.pe/Sicr/ApoyComisiones/comision2011.nsf/DictamenesFuturo/A720FCB4E0B6048A05257A4600510861/$FILE/JUSTICIA.34.307.1136-2011-CR.May.Txt.Sust..pdf] (a pesar de haberse aprobado el 26 de Junio tal como consta en la transcripción de la sesión de dicha fecha) [http://lexdigitalis.lamula.pe/2012/07/10/transcripcion-de-la-comision-de-justicia-26-06-12-dictamen-delitos-informaticos/lexdigitalis] busca enfrentar un fenómeno poco conocido por el legislador de la mejor manera que pueden: desarrollando un texto en base a su buen saber y entender, a pesar de que cuando pudimos le dimos un poco de información para poder comprender mejor el fenómeno [ver: http://iriartelaw.com/comentarios-Proyecto-de-Ley-de-Delitos-Informaticos] > > Sin duda un esfuerzo loable y notable por parte del legislador y de sus asesores (que tuvieron que capear criticas sobre la originalidad de los textos de los antecedentes [ver: http://www.blawyer.org/2012/07/02/congreso-delitos-informaticos-pirateo/], al enfrentarse a un difícil tema como es el cybercrimen. > > El proyecto ha pasado al Pleno donde se “debatirá” prontamente, incluyendo entre otros el siguiente texto: “No se encuentra dentro del alcance del secreto de las comunicaciones la información relacionada con la identidad de los titulares de telefonía móvil; los números de registro del cliente, de la línea telefónica y del equipo; el tráfico de llamadas y los números de protocolo de internet (números IP). Por lo tanto, las empresas proveedoras de servicios de telefonía e internet debe proporcionar la información antes señalada conjuntamente con los datos de identificación del titular del servicio que corresponda, a la Policía Nacional del Perú o al Ministerio Público dentro de las cuarenta y ocho horas de recibido el requerimiento, bajo responsabilidad, cuando estas instituciones actúen en el cumplimiento de sus funciones.” Mas asombroso que el texto mismo son los argumentos para mantenerlo expresados por el mismo presidente de la Comisión, Congresista Beingolea, quien indica que no estos temas "que creo que la cobertura constitucional no alcanza a estos", es decir como si la información de números IP que son datos personales (A pesar que la ley de protección de datos personales dice: "art.2.4 dato personal: toda información sobre una persona natural que la identifica o la hace identificable a través de medios que pueden ser razonablemente utilizados"). > > Entre los que hemos visto el peligro de la privacidad y los que han percibido un peligro a la libertad de expresión, tenemos razones mas que suficientes para temer por lo que implicaría este proyecto (casi tanto como la falta de reglamento de la ley de protección de datos, que deja en un limbo jurídico temas como los que pretende regular la presente ley). > > Es entonces innecesaria una ley de Delitos Informaticos?, ciertamente no es innecesaria y debe poder regular una serie de actos utilizando TICs y que afecten al bien jurídico información de una manera clara y directa. Somos unos de los países que mas tempranamente adoptaron una regulación en tema de delitos informáticos (delitos que afectan al bien jurídico información) con la incorporación de los artículos 207A, 207B y 207C, enfocados en el intrusismo informático y en el cracking. Luego desarrollamos una legislación para fortalecer el combate contra la pornografía infantil, le dimos potestades a los fiscales para poder intervenir en comunicaciones (incluyendo comunicaciones digitales) pero no le dimos para temas de delitos por medio de TICs, y se han planteado diversos proyectos para adecuadar los tipos penales existentes, pero no se han completado. > > Es pues necesario un instrumento internacional, como el Convenio de Cybercrimen, que nos permita insertarnos en los esfuerzos internacionales y no quedar como una isla no regulada. El Convenio aparte de haber sido firmado por los países europeos, USA, Japon, Australia, Nueva Zelandia entre otros, presenta de la región a Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Republica Dominicana y Mexico que han firmado o ya están en proceso de ratificación del acuerdo. Mientras que otros países ya se encuentran en proceso de firmar el acuerdo. > > Da instrumentos para adecuación normativa, para cooperación internacional y abre las puertas para el desarrollo de normativa sobre informática forense, necesaria para darle instrumento a la Policia y la Fiscalia para la persecución del delito. > > Siendo de relevancia para el desarrollo de la Sociedad de la Informacion y con ello crear un marco normativo favorable al desarrollo de la industria TIC pero sobre todo para el desarrollo social, la pregunta a hacerse es: ¿Y el Peru cuando firmara y ratificara el Acuerdo de Cybercrimen, o es que deseamos ser una isla donde impunemente se utilice la delincuencia para delinquir? > > Tomando en cuento lo anterior, la ley que pretende aprobar el parlamento, tomando en cuenta que ha sido con buena intención, en lugar de beneficiar y proteger, termina siendo un instrumento que puede vulnerar los derechos que se han ganado con ardua labor como son los de protección de datos personales, sumado a que debiendo adscribirnos al Convenio de Budapest (que curiosamente durante el debate en la Comisión se menciona como fuente para las "definiciones" no se toma como fuente para el articulado normativo). > > No nos enfrentamos a un debate sobre si es buena o mala una ley, nos enfrentamos a que "el dulcísimo azúcar produce caries" y esta ley que pretende ayudar, termina afectando. No se trata de inventar cosas nuevas, cuando mucha legislación a nivel internacional, porque esto es un fenómeno transfronterizo, ya ha sido avanzada y desarrollada en el Acuerdo de Cybercrimen, que hay que suscribirlo, tal como se ha dicho por funcionarios públicos y privados en los pasados 10 años. > > Aprobar esta ley no será un avance, será quizás un retroceso real y sensible en el desarrollo de la Sociedad de la Información en el Perú y por ende afectara mucho de los desarrollos y derechos que se han ganado con esta importante herramienta. > > Es hora de salir a reclamar, no podemos ser uno mas de los que hacen la cifra de los conectados. Requerimos instrumentos para perseguir los delitos como el Acuerdo de Budapest de Cybercrimen, que a la fecha no se ha firmado; pero tambien requerimos que los instrumentos defiendan los derechos de los individuos. Internet no es un mundo sin ley pero sin duda tampoco un sitio de actuar a mansalva. #NOLeydelitosinformaticos > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 16:06:00 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 01:06:00 +0500 Subject: [governance] In Interview, Romney Brings Arab Spring Into Presidential Race - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes Sala, The Arab Spring issue as Foreign Policy is also the soul food of ITU ITR discussions. The paranoia surrounding the Arab Spring across the globe is just unbelievably indigestible. Fouad Bajwa On Aug 5, 2012 1:01 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> >> http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/in-interview-romney-brings-arab-spring-into-presidential-race/ >> >> This is going to be soul food for the Arab IGF I suppose. >> > Having being at a recent Pacific Broadband Forum organised by the ITU in > Fiji which followed the APT meeting. I was surprised to hear the Republic > of Marshall Islands (RMI) talk about how the Arab Spring affected ICT > development in RMI. ;) (chuckling) > >> Fouad >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 16:07:27 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 08:07:27 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Congreso del Peru puede aprobar ley contra el #internetlibre by E.Iriarte In-Reply-To: References: <99FCE172-08AF-4FB3-8247-3CCC924655DC@alfa-redi.org> Message-ID: This is the English Translation on Google of what Erick sent: Peru Congress can pass laws against the # internetlibre by E.Iriarte "The ax used to cut heads, but also use it to cut trees and build houses with wood. You must learn to realize how much good in the bad and very bad it can be good. The sweet sugar can harm us Castor and disgusting we can heal. " Don Cesar Echague by Jose Marllorquí The Opinion of the Committee on Justice and Human Rights awarded to 034/2011-CR Bills, 307/2011 -CR and 1136/2011-CR with alternative text proposed by the Law of Crime, published dated 20 July Despite the adoption of the June 26 as recorded in the transcript of the meeting of that date) seeks to address a phenomenon known by the legislature in the best way they can: developing a text based on its knowledge and belief, despite the fact that when we gave him some information to better understand the phenomenon [see: http :/ / iriartelaw.com / comments-Project-of-Law-of-Crimes-Informaticos] No doubt a laudable effort and remarkable by the legislator and his advisors (who had to weather criticism about the originality of the text of the background [see http://www.blawyer.org/2012/07/02/congreso -crime-computer-hacking /] , when faced with a difficult subject such as cybercrime. The bill has passed the House where the "debate" promptly, including among others the following: "It is within the scope of the secrecy of communications information regarding the identity of the mobile phone holders, the registration numbers customer telephone line and equipment, call traffic numbers and Internet Protocol (IP numbers). Therefore, companies that provide telephone and internet services must provide the above information together with information identifying the holder of the appropriate service, the National Police of Peru or the Attorney General within forty-eight hours received the request, under the responsibility, when these institutions are acting in the performance of their duties. "More amazing than the text itself are the arguments to keep the same expressed by Committee Chairman, Congressman Beingolea, which indicates that these issues" that believe that constitutional coverage does not reach these ", ie as if the information of IP numbers that are personal (Although the law on protection of personal data says," art.2.4 personal information means information about an individual that identifies it or makes it identifiable through means that can be reasonably used "). Among those who have seen the danger of privacy and those who perceived a threat to freedom of expression, we have more than enough reasons to fear for what would this project (almost as much as the lack of regulations for the protection law data, leaving in limbo items such as those intended to regulate the present law). It is then unnecessary computer crime law?, Certainly not unnecessary and should be able to regulate a series of events using ICT and affecting the legal right information in a clear and direct. We are one of the earliest countries adopted a regulation in issue of crime (crimes affecting the legal right information) with the addition of Articles 207A, 207B and 207C, focused on computer intrusion and cracking. Then we develop legislation to strengthen the fight against child pornography, we gave prosecutors powers to intervene in communications (including digital communication) but did not give him to criminal issues through ICT, and several projects have been proposed for adecuadar existing criminal types, but not completed. It is therefore necessary to an international instrument such as the Cybercrime Convention, which allows us to insert ourselves in the international efforts and not be like an island unregulated. The Convention has been signed separately by European countries, USA, Japan, Australia, New Zealand among others, present in the region to Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic and Mexico that have signed or are in process of ratification of agreement. While other countries already in the process of signing the agreement. Provides tools for regulatory adaptation to international cooperation and opens the door for the development of regulations on computer forensics tool needed to give the police and prosecutors to prosecute the crime. Being relevant to the development of Information Society and thereby create a regulatory framework conducive to the development of the ICT industry but above all for social development, the question to ask is: What about when Peru signed and ratified the Agreement of cybercrime, or do we want to be an island where crime is used with impunity to commit a crime? Taking the above story, the law intends to adopt the parliament, taking into account that has been with good intention, rather than benefit and protect ends up being a tool that can violate the rights they have earned with hard work such as protection of personal data, added to which must ascribe to the Budapest Convention (which curiously during the debate in the Commission mentioned as a source for the "definitions" is not taken as normative source for the articles). We face a debate over whether good or bad law, we are faced with "the sweetest sugar causes tooth decay" and this law is intended to help, ends up affecting. This is not to invent new things, when many international law, because this is a transboundary phenomenon has already been advanced and developed in the Agreement on cybercrime, you have to sign it, as has been said by government officials and private the past 10 years. Passing this law will not be an advance, is it a real throwback and sensitive development of the Information Society in Peru and thus affect a lot of developments and rights that have earned this important tool. Time to get out to claim, we can not be one more of those making the number of connected. Require tools to prosecute crimes such as Budapest Agreement of cybercrime, which to date has not been signed, but also require that the instruments defend the rights of individuals. Internet is a lawless world but certainly not a place to act in cold blood. # NOLeydelitosinformaticos Peru Congress can pass laws against the # internetlibre by E.Iriarte "The ax used to cut heads, but also use it to cut trees and build houses with wood. You must learn to realize how much good in the bad and very bad it can be good. The sweet sugar can harm us Castor and disgusting we can heal. " Don Cesar Echague by Jose Marllorquí The Opinion of the Committee on Justice and Human Rights awarded to 034/2011-CR Bills, 307/2011 -CR and 1136/2011-CR with alternative text proposed by the Law of Crime, published dated 20 July Despite the adoption of the June 26 as recorded in the transcript of the meeting of that date) seeks to address a phenomenon known by the legislature in the best way they can: developing a text based on its knowledge and belief, despite the fact that when we gave him some information to better understand the phenomenon [see: http :/ / iriartelaw.com / comments-Project-of-Law-of-Crimes-Informaticos] No doubt a laudable effort and remarkable by the legislator and his advisors (who had to weather criticism about the originality of the text of the background [see http://www.blawyer.org/2012/07/02/congreso -crime-computer-hacking /] , when faced with a difficult subject such as cybercrime. The bill has passed the House where the "debate" promptly, including among others the following: "It is within the scope of the secrecy of communications information regarding the identity of the mobile phone holders, the registration numbers customer telephone line and equipment, call traffic numbers and Internet Protocol (IP numbers). Therefore, companies that provide telephone and internet services must provide the above information together with information identifying the holder of the appropriate service, the National Police of Peru or the Attorney General within forty-eight hours received the request, under the responsibility, when these institutions are acting in the performance of their duties. "More amazing than the text itself are the arguments to keep the same expressed by Committee Chairman, Congressman Beingolea, which indicates that these issues" that believe that constitutional coverage does not reach these ", ie as if the information of IP numbers that are personal (Although the law on protection of personal data says," art.2.4 personal information means information about an individual that identifies it or makes it identifiable through means that can be reasonably used "). Among those who have seen the danger of privacy and those who perceived a threat to freedom of expression, we have more than enough reasons to fear for what would this project (almost as much as the lack of regulations for the protection law data, leaving in limbo items such as those intended to regulate the present law). It is then unnecessary computer crime law?, Certainly not unnecessary and should be able to regulate a series of events using ICT and affecting the legal right information in a clear and direct. We are one of the earliest countries adopted a regulation in issue of crime (crimes affecting the legal right information) with the addition of Articles 207A, 207B and 207C, focused on computer intrusion and cracking. Then we develop legislation to strengthen the fight against child pornography, we gave prosecutors powers to intervene in communications (including digital communication) but did not give him to criminal issues through ICT, and several projects have been proposed for adecuadar existing criminal types, but not completed. It is therefore necessary to an international instrument such as the Cybercrime Convention, which allows us to insert ourselves in the international efforts and not be like an island unregulated. The Convention has been signed separately by European countries, USA, Japan, Australia, New Zealand among others, present in the region to Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic and Mexico that have signed or are in process of ratification of agreement. While other countries already in the process of signing the agreement. Provides tools for regulatory adaptation to international cooperation and opens the door for the development of regulations on computer forensics tool needed to give the police and prosecutors to prosecute the crime. Being relevant to the development of Information Society and thereby create a regulatory framework conducive to the development of the ICT industry but above all for social development, the question to ask is: What about when Peru signed and ratified the Agreement of cybercrime, or do we want to be an island where crime is used with impunity to commit a crime? Taking the above story, the law intends to adopt the parliament, taking into account that has been with good intention, rather than benefit and protect ends up being a tool that can violate the rights they have earned with hard work such as protection of personal data, added to which must ascribe to the Budapest Convention (which curiously during the debate in the Commission mentioned as a source for the "definitions" is not taken as normative source for the articles). We face a debate over whether good or bad law, we are faced with "the sweetest sugar causes tooth decay" and this law is intended to help, ends up affecting. This is not to invent new things, when many international law, because this is a transboundary phenomenon has already been advanced and developed in the Agreement on cybercrime, you have to sign it, as has been said by government officials and private the past 10 years. Passing this law will not be an advance, is it a real throwback and sensitive development of the Information Society in Peru and thus affect a lot of developments and rights that have earned this important tool. Time to get out to claim, we can not be one more of those making the number of connected. Require tools to prosecute crimes such as Budapest Agreement of cybercrime, which to date has not been signed, but also require that the instruments defend the rights of individuals. Internet is a lawless world but certainly not a place to act in cold blood. # NOLeydelitosinformaticos 2012/8/5 Erick Iriarte Ahon > FYI > > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > *De: *Erick Iriarte Ahon > *Fecha: *3 de agosto de 2012 17:54:31 GMT-05:00 > *Para: *"Peru Digital: Espacio de Dialogo para un Peru Digital" < > peru-digital at dgroups.org>, "Foro de Derecho Informático." < > derecho-informatico at dgroups.org> > *Cc: *LatinoamerICANN LatinoamerICANN > *Asunto: **Congreso del Peru puede aprobar ley contra el #internetlibre > by E.Iriarte* > > Fuente: > http://lexdigitalis.lamula.pe/2012/08/03/congreso-del-peru-puede-aprobar-ley-contra-el-internetlibre-by-e-iriarte/lexdigitalis > > Congreso del Peru puede aprobar ley contra el #internetlibre by E.Iriarte > > "El hacha sirve para cortar cabezas; pero también la utilizamos para > cortar árboles y hacer casas con su madera. Has de aprender a descubrir lo > mucho bueno que hay en lo malo y lo malísimo que puede resultar lo bueno. > El dulce azúcar puede hacernos daño y el asqueroso ricino nos puede curar." > Don Cesar de Echague by Jose Marllorquí > > El Dictamen de la Comisión de Justicia y Derechos Humanos recaído en los > Proyectos de Ley 034/2011-CR, 307/2011-CR y 1136/2011-CR con un texto > sustitutorio por el que se propone la Ley de los delitos informáticos, > publicado con fecha 20 de Julio [ver: > http://www2.congreso.gob.pe/Sicr/ApoyComisiones/comision2011.nsf/DictamenesFuturo/A720FCB4E0B6048A05257A4600510861/$FILE/JUSTICIA.34.307.1136-2011-CR.May.Txt.Sust..pdf](a pesar de haberse aprobado el 26 de Junio tal como consta en la > transcripción de la sesión de dicha fecha) [ > http://lexdigitalis.lamula.pe/2012/07/10/transcripcion-de-la-comision-de-justicia-26-06-12-dictamen-delitos-informaticos/lexdigitalis] > busca enfrentar un fenómeno poco conocido por el legislador de la mejor > manera que pueden: desarrollando un texto en base a su buen saber y > entender, a pesar de que cuando pudimos le dimos un poco de información > para poder comprender mejor el fenómeno [ver: > http://iriartelaw.com/comentarios-Proyecto-de-Ley-de-Delitos-Informaticos] > > Sin duda un esfuerzo loable y notable por parte del legislador y de sus > asesores (que tuvieron que capear criticas sobre la originalidad de los > textos de los antecedentes [ver: > http://www.blawyer.org/2012/07/02/congreso-delitos-informaticos-pirateo/], > al enfrentarse a un difícil tema como es el cybercrimen. > > El proyecto ha pasado al Pleno donde se “debatirá” prontamente, incluyendo > entre otros el siguiente texto: “No se encuentra dentro del alcance del > secreto de las comunicaciones la información relacionada con la identidad > de los titulares de telefonía móvil; los números de registro del cliente, > de la línea telefónica y del equipo; el tráfico de llamadas y los números > de protocolo de internet (números IP). Por lo tanto, las empresas > proveedoras de servicios de telefonía e internet debe proporcionar la > información antes señalada conjuntamente con los datos de identificación > del titular del servicio que corresponda, a la Policía Nacional del Perú o > al Ministerio Público dentro de las cuarenta y ocho horas de recibido el > requerimiento, bajo responsabilidad, cuando estas instituciones actúen en > el cumplimiento de sus funciones.” Mas asombroso que el texto mismo son los > argumentos para mantenerlo expresados por el mismo presidente de la > Comisión, Congresista Beingolea, quien indica que no estos temas "que creo > que la cobertura constitucional no alcanza a estos", es decir como si la > información de números IP que son datos personales (A pesar que la ley de > protección de datos personales dice: "art.2.4 dato personal: toda > información sobre una persona natural que la identifica o la hace > identificable a través de medios que pueden ser razonablemente utilizados"). > > Entre los que hemos visto el peligro de la privacidad y los que han > percibido un peligro a la libertad de expresión, tenemos razones mas que > suficientes para temer por lo que implicaría este proyecto (casi tanto como > la falta de reglamento de la ley de protección de datos, que deja en un > limbo jurídico temas como los que pretende regular la presente ley). > > Es entonces innecesaria una ley de Delitos Informaticos?, ciertamente no > es innecesaria y debe poder regular una serie de actos utilizando TICs y > que afecten al bien jurídico información de una manera clara y directa. > Somos unos de los países que mas tempranamente adoptaron una regulación en > tema de delitos informáticos (delitos que afectan al bien jurídico > información) con la incorporación de los artículos 207A, 207B y 207C, > enfocados en el intrusismo informático y en el cracking. Luego > desarrollamos una legislación para fortalecer el combate contra la > pornografía infantil, le dimos potestades a los fiscales para poder > intervenir en comunicaciones (incluyendo comunicaciones digitales) pero no > le dimos para temas de delitos por medio de TICs, y se han planteado > diversos proyectos para adecuadar los tipos penales existentes, pero no se > han completado. > > Es pues necesario un instrumento internacional, como el Convenio de > Cybercrimen, que nos permita insertarnos en los esfuerzos internacionales y > no quedar como una isla no regulada. El Convenio aparte de haber sido > firmado por los países europeos, USA, Japon, Australia, Nueva Zelandia > entre otros, presenta de la región a Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, > Republica Dominicana y Mexico que han firmado o ya están en proceso de > ratificación del acuerdo. Mientras que otros países ya se encuentran en > proceso de firmar el acuerdo. > > Da instrumentos para adecuación normativa, para cooperación internacional > y abre las puertas para el desarrollo de normativa sobre informática > forense, necesaria para darle instrumento a la Policia y la Fiscalia para > la persecución del delito. > > Siendo de relevancia para el desarrollo de la Sociedad de la Informacion y > con ello crear un marco normativo favorable al desarrollo de la industria > TIC pero sobre todo para el desarrollo social, la pregunta a hacerse es: ¿Y > el Peru cuando firmara y ratificara el Acuerdo de Cybercrimen, o es que > deseamos ser una isla donde impunemente se utilice la delincuencia para > delinquir? > > Tomando en cuento lo anterior, la ley que pretende aprobar el parlamento, > tomando en cuenta que ha sido con buena intención, en lugar de beneficiar y > proteger, termina siendo un instrumento que puede vulnerar los derechos que > se han ganado con ardua labor como son los de protección de datos > personales, sumado a que debiendo adscribirnos al Convenio de Budapest (que > curiosamente durante el debate en la Comisión se menciona como fuente para > las "definiciones" no se toma como fuente para el articulado normativo). > > No nos enfrentamos a un debate sobre si es buena o mala una ley, nos > enfrentamos a que "el dulcísimo azúcar produce caries" y esta ley que > pretende ayudar, termina afectando. No se trata de inventar cosas nuevas, > cuando mucha legislación a nivel internacional, porque esto es un fenómeno > transfronterizo, ya ha sido avanzada y desarrollada en el Acuerdo de > Cybercrimen, que hay que suscribirlo, tal como se ha dicho por funcionarios > públicos y privados en los pasados 10 años. > > Aprobar esta ley no será un avance, será quizás un retroceso real y > sensible en el desarrollo de la Sociedad de la Información en el Perú y por > ende afectara mucho de los desarrollos y derechos que se han ganado con > esta importante herramienta. > > Es hora de salir a reclamar, no podemos ser uno mas de los que hacen la > cifra de los conectados. Requerimos instrumentos para perseguir los delitos > como el Acuerdo de Budapest de Cybercrimen, que a la fecha no se ha > firmado; pero tambien requerimos que los instrumentos defiendan los > derechos de los individuos. Internet no es un mundo sin ley pero sin duda > tampoco un sitio de actuar a mansalva. #NOLeydelitosinformaticos > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 16:09:31 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 08:09:31 +1200 Subject: [governance] In Interview, Romney Brings Arab Spring Into Presidential Race - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Yes Sala, > > The Arab Spring issue as Foreign Policy is also the soul food of ITU ITR > discussions. The paranoia surrounding the Arab Spring across the globe is > just unbelievably indigestible. > The RMI context was that the ICT company that was engaged to roll out Universal Service had to bail out under "Force Majeure" because they were a Libyan company. > Fouad Bajwa > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 16:12:17 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 01:12:17 +0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Is it possible that someone with the right kind of legal backing and financial strength can drag ICANN to court and get an injunction at any point on both of the .xxx and new gtld go ahead to limit further activities on both? Fouad Bajwa On Aug 5, 2012 12:52 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Slight edits: > > Fahd: What makes things even worst is that many board members (in their > capacity as employers of their respective firms) benifited their respective > employers with the approval of the New gTLD program. Even more, some past > board members jumped to greener shores with business ventures elsewhere > (and I am sure you know what I exactly mean). > > Sal: Yes, that literally enraged the wider global community in terms of > "conflict of interest" management. The reality is that situation boiled > down to personal integrity and ethics as there was nothing in writing > concerning that specific situation. This was of course addressed through > rigorous consultations with the global community so that it never happens > again. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Sat Aug 4 16:35:59 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 20:35:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>, Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AAA2C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Fahd, I'll try to be brief and objective in replying: Desde: Fahd A. Batayneh [fahd.batayneh at gmail.com] Enviado el: sábado, 04 de agosto de 2012 13:13 Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch CC: IG Caucus Asunto: Re: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal Alejandro, while I have no negative stance against the ICANN board or any board member in particular, there remains two unanswered questions for me: 1. How did the board approve .xxx while the community was against it. The Board I served on rejected it. The decision-review process which .xxx won leaves very little room to do other than allowing .xxx to go forward. What do you think would have been a worse outcry against ICANN? for going forward following its established rules, or for going against them? 1. How did the board approve the New gTLD program while many answers and concerns were unanswered. Even after the program was launched, the "TAS glitch" caused lots of controversy. Even worst, ICANN is talking about the next New gTLD round (initially planed for 2013) when current issues have not been resolved yet. What makes things even worst is that many board members (in their capacity as employers of their respective firms) benifited their respective employers with the approval of the New gTLD program. AP: this blank statement is wrong. A number of people who would have been in that situation recused themselves from voting and even discussing the decisions of the new gTLD program that would have meant a benefit for them or their employers. Even more, some past board members jumped to greener shores with business ventures elsewhere (and I am sure you know what I exactly mean). AP: strictly I can only guess and say that there is at least one prominent instance which I have deplored deeply. Sala has already pointed to the strong community reaction and how it's causing better conflict of interest rules to be enacted, and a higher level of community vigilance to appear. You know conflict of interest and duties towards the organization vary a lot cross-culturally. I am in favor of great clarity so people know where Directors etc. stand when they vote, and when they shape a decision. The argument has been made that certain stricter rules "are US-centric" and should not apply, say, to French nationals. Maybe someone in this list can explore that further. I don't really buy it and find the argument disgraceful. Hope this is useful. Alejandro Pisanty After all, shouldn't the board work in the best of the "Public Interest"? Fahd On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > wrote: Riaz, I can tell you from my eight years tenure in the ICANN Board that once the sustainability of the organization was achieved, the terms of contracts like the ones with Verisign were analyzed by the Board on a very principled basis. Their budgetary impact for ICANN itself was never a primary consideration. >From knowledge of present Directors I tend to presume mostly a similar trend. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] Enviado el: sábado, 04 de agosto de 2012 02:07 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Fouad Bajwa Asunto: Re: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal This can be understood in terms of path dependency as well as Public Choice theory... at some level of abstraction. On 2012/08/03 02:48 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > The financial aspect and opportunities will always be there because at > the end of the day, we see a lot of stuff that inclines towards > benefiting the domain industry. > > Best > > Fouad > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh > > wrote: >> http://domainincite.com/9845-icann-to-get-8-million-more-from-new-com-deal >> >> I wonder if this was the reason why ICANN renewed the .com agreement in >> favor of VeriSign Inc., causing lots of controversy and question marks >> within the ICANN community. >> >> Fahd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> list mailing list >> list at igfarab.org >> http://mail.igfarab.org/mailman/listinfo/list >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Sat Aug 4 16:38:45 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 20:38:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> , Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AAA38@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Fouad, that can only be tested in practice. Someone (or many "ones") must have already had this idea and studied the case. If it hasn't yet been attempted it may be that these "ones" concluded that the risk of not having a case they could win was too high for the cost-benefit ratio they were looking after. But we'll never know until it happens or some as-yet unknown stories are told. Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Enviado el: sábado, 04 de agosto de 2012 15:12 Hasta: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; governance at lists.igcaucus.org CC: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Asunto: Re: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal Is it possible that someone with the right kind of legal backing and financial strength can drag ICANN to court and get an injunction at any point on both of the .xxx and new gtld go ahead to limit further activities on both? Fouad Bajwa On Aug 5, 2012 12:52 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > wrote: Slight edits: Fahd: What makes things even worst is that many board members (in their capacity as employers of their respective firms) benifited their respective employers with the approval of the New gTLD program. Even more, some past board members jumped to greener shores with business ventures elsewhere (and I am sure you know what I exactly mean). Sal: Yes, that literally enraged the wider global community in terms of "conflict of interest" management. The reality is that situation boiled down to personal integrity and ethics as there was nothing in writing concerning that specific situation. This was of course addressed through rigorous consultations with the global community so that it never happens again. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 17:35:41 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 02:35:41 +0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AAA38@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AAA38@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Actually this is one important aspect of ICANN in the IG discourse. One common belief among some people I the GAC that I know was that with the .xxx approval could provide them a simpler ground for banning, blocking, filtering and censorship just based on a simple "anything + .xxx" blanket block and for some others it wasn't a bad idea either. For the people in the porn industry, well they have their own story which is not the issue here but I know a lot of people in the SF ICANN meeting that displayed the We Support .XXX GTLD badge just to be on the blocking side of the table. On the other discussion of legality, ICANN subject to US based California laws can face injunctions, petitions and cases against its judgements. This may actually come more into play when the new GTLD approvals go forward. There might be resulting anger and counter attempts to stop parties from launching their new gtlds but yes it is yet unforeseen. I see new gtld stakeholder parties outside the US less capable to do it unless they have branches in the US and can file and pursue the cases. Its still a very US centric game field. Best Fouad On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Fouad, > > that can only be tested in practice. Someone (or many "ones") must have > already had this idea and studied the case. If it hasn't yet been attempted > it may be that these "ones" concluded that the risk of not having a case > they could win was too high for the cost-benefit ratio they were looking > after. > > But we'll never know until it happens or some as-yet unknown stories are > told. > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________ > Desde: Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] > Enviado el: sábado, 04 de agosto de 2012 15:12 > Hasta: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > CC: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > > Asunto: Re: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from > New .com Deal > > Is it possible that someone with the right kind of legal backing and > financial strength can drag ICANN to court and get an injunction at any > point on both of the .xxx and new gtld go ahead to limit further activities > on both? > > Fouad Bajwa > > On Aug 5, 2012 12:52 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > wrote: >> >> Slight edits: >> >> Fahd: What makes things even worst is that many board members (in their >> capacity as employers of their respective firms) benifited their respective >> employers with the approval of the New gTLD program. Even more, some past >> board members jumped to greener shores with business ventures elsewhere (and >> I am sure you know what I exactly mean). >> >> Sal: Yes, that literally enraged the wider global community in terms of >> "conflict of interest" management. The reality is that situation boiled down >> to personal integrity and ethics as there was nothing in writing concerning >> that specific situation. This was of course addressed through rigorous >> consultations with the global community so that it never happens again. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 18:03:18 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 00:03:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA725@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> <4682BA4E-6821-4B55-9508-16475C18DEEA@istaff.org>,<501CCE50.1070503@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA725@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <501D9C26.8080001@gmail.com> Doctor Thanks for the note on tenor of discussions on this list. And I am adequately chastised. That said (there seems to always be a but with someone like me... so please don't take it in the wrong way...), But if you look at some of the discussions there is a need for those who raise challenges under the banner of legitimacy one can easily discern that the courtesy you talk about is not a two way street. And I for one have no problems with robust discussions if reason is not the first casualty. In point of fact, I appreciate it when people come right out and support American Exceptionalism - because at least, as they say, it goes with the territory of being a global power. I do wish you would level similar critiques at those who characterise the legitimacy issue (of CIR) as*"internet propaganda"* (when propaganda about a single root was technically sound for many, many a year - and anyone who crit it was like those who crit Mortgage Backed Security derivatives: simply out of the fold!) which is about as crude and vulgar as you can get. I trust that you will also weigh in when Parminder et al put out views that are subject to similar arguments, i.e. "A assumes that B is X just because a part of his/her positions are like some of X, sound like part of X, or are conflated in the reader's minds to be like X" - examples in bold for your edification. Not only have peoples views been belittled on this list, but they are also marginalised and put to higher standards of "proof". Sure it is not precisely the same bunch of people - but the arguments are repetitive and go round in circles, often with ICANN defenders against a few lonely voices on this list. Even on recent threads, the argument is that *we are back to 2003/4*. As if progress has been made on*legitimacy*. So, if one expects reasonableness then it must be with an even hand - which I trust will come forth with your guiding hand as for some of us the legitimacy issue remains unsatisfactorily resolved - and there is continued engagement. And lest there be no doubt. I do not mind nationalism, or favouring market based, or self supervision or even 'if ain't broke don't fix it' arguments - it is when there is a posse of people who support these sentiments and make claims to universal application - when in fact these are claims of universalism that rather do violence to difference. Parminder has raised concerns for instance about *MSG as a format*. These were discussed but not taken seriously - and now that Companies have a coalition whereas public interest civil society is rather weaker, it seems like Parminder's concerns have borne fruit (i.e. more analytically valid in poeisis) as compared to others, at least from my point of view. Further, it is fine to take a values based position (eg on*freedom of expression*) regarding China, but it would be wrong to then sublate that critique into mute when it comes to rich country democracies. It is not reasonable to expect others to tolerate these double standards - even if the proponents of such views can manage these contradictions. That is the kind of party invite one can refuse. But you are correct issues of tone could be better and I hope that your critique can be taken /collectively/ rather than merely for those who question MSG, ICANN legitimacy etc. Its a party we can all go to : ) Let's be optimistic about your invite, and I am happy to play my marginal role - but not in the face of provocation unfortunately... Riaz On 2012/08/04 07:34 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Riaz, > > it is interesting that in the same breath in which you call a number > of people a "coarse and vulgar bunch", in ways that make it difficult > to separate those you mean to debase from those you don't, you choose > to characterize some subset of people as "more Catholic than the > Pope", "coarse and vulgar", and other terms which you may guess some > might find between inadequate and offensive. > > Where there may be a flaw in your argumentation is, interestingly, > where opportunity for real dialog lies. > > You may imagine that positions like the ones you often present, and > their delivery, are equally alienating to others. > > One of them - and this one may cut both ways - is the creation of a > Feindbild, in which A assumes that B is X just because a part of > his/her positions are like some of X, sound like part of X, or are > conflated in the reader's minds to be like X. > > When that happens each of us may be "seeing red" and not noticing > important parts of the conversation, such as people being equally > committed to build a system and to fix its faults. One instance would > be people trying to carry on the task of building ICANN, yet keeping > it within size and mission, and trying their best to solve the flaws > of asymmetric USG power. > > Tell me what I may be seeing wrong, in a similar way, in your > position, that can open up a dialogue and throw down or at least > soften the walls of the tunnel situation in which we land again and > again. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Desde:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob > [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] > *Enviado el:* sábado, 04 de agosto de 2012 02:25 > *Hasta:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; John Curran > *Asunto:* [governance] Re: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? > > > On 2012/08/03 03:30 PM, John Curran wrote: >> On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:28 PM, Sivasubramanian M > > wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 3, 2012 6:29 AM, "John Curran" >> > wrote: >>> >>> > After all, the USG has seen the transition from top-down formal >>> contracting for these >>> > functions to a more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder management of >>> critical Internet >>> > resources, including the decentralization of IP address management >>> to the RIRs, the >>> > formation of ICANN, and replacement of the JPA with the >>> Affirmation of Commitments. >>> >>> Who knows this? Who understands this? How many people know that it >>> takes no more than $3k to mirror the ICANN root server? A few among >>> the few thousand ICANN / IG / RIR / ISOC participants. In a world of >>> sensational headlines on unilateral control of the root, all these >>> positive goodness is buried in fine print. The gestures I have >>> talked about would be a visible, graphic answer to the bad headlines. >>> >> If you are suggesting the USG needs some help in doing PR with >> regards to its positive >> steps in Internet Governance over the last two decades, I would not >> argue with that... > > PR is one thing. Disinterested discourse in civil society is quite > another. There are many who take an ICANN line, defending the "faith" > - and are try to be more Catholic than the pope. Effectiveness > arguments are INSUFFICIENT regarding claims of legitimacy. And of > course in civil society ICANN "loyalists" (paid hacks or genuine > believers) are overal IMHO rather coarse and vulgar bunch (needs be > said). So there PR is one thing, and civil society engagement (based > on reason - which is not too high a standard to cope with diversity) > another. > > > >>> > None of the above would have been possible coming from "a posture >>> of total unwillingness"... >>> >>> So it appears to the common man, or made to appear to the common man >>> in a carefully archestrated propaganda of misleading 'headlines' >>> that appears to me to be a psychological campaign with carefully >>> calculated omissions. >>> >> Indeed. I believe that some actively obscure or misrepresent the USG >> track record in >> facilitating decentralization of Internet Governance since inception >> of the Internet. Like >> many things in this world, it is not perfect, but I do believe that >> has been an enabler of >> discussion of open and transparent multi-stakeholder governance which >> might easily not >> have otherwise occurred. > > Ah but one cannot just take a single type of approach to this. > Dialectically (in the Hegelian sense) MSG has been seen by some as a > good alternative to actually doing something about the legitimacy > issue. Name calling (anti-Internet propaganda sounds so similar to > "there can be only one root") has been the forte of the coarse and > vulgar, and ab initio takes the wind out of the sails of any genuine > engagement/arguments. > >>> >> As an answer to all these undesirable distractions, why not offer >>> a glimpse of what is to come 10 years or less or more later ? >>> > >>> > >>> > Why should we presume that such a roadmap should come from the >>> USG, as opposed >>> > the Internet community itself? >>> >>> :-) >>> >> Thanks for raising this important topic! > > The issue is that the combined might (i.e. power) of USG, ICANN > (employees, hacks & believers & wannabe's) in an MSG institutional > setting (where scant regard is given for corporate domination - > perhaps because of the "quaint" definition of "private sector" in the > US that includes both non-profit and for-profit) kinda makes it hard > to have a civilised reasonable discussion about these topics. > > Yeah, people engage up to a point... so this needs to be said - just > so that there is no doubt: if one does not conflate technical > (effectiveness) with social then the legitimacy argument has and > continues to have merit. And issues of where is your evidence or > technical precision, are often (not always) raised, but NOT as a means > to deal with the issue - but to fob it off. Now some on this list may > present themselves as playing the game (because that is how the game > is played)... not all are convinced by that wonderful alleged Bushism > (elected 2x btw;), you can fool some of the people some of the time > and those are the ones you should concentrate on. > > While some/few (in case there are others of my persuasion - but > speaking for myself only) of us know our relative powerless, and very > aware of the sophisticated hounding of our views, _we do believe in > the reality of choice_, and engagement to bring about changes in an > evolutionary way... so the real test will be weather these > communication of technical details can actually stand up to being > "neutral" in terms of legitimacy... after all Cassandra did warn about > the Trojan Horse... > >> /John >> >> Disclaimers: My views alone. Email written at higher altitudes may >> lack coherence; >> use at your own risk. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 21:15:22 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 18:15:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal Message-ID: <1344129322.30721.BPMail_low_noncarrier@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Sponsors of the Porn Industry and xxx community is given Special Privilege by the GAC. Even they claim that it is technically easy to block root level TLD comparing to filtering database, they did not given any action statement 'to block such type of domains / contents from other TLD', and yet not asked anyone 'to move current porn/xxx sites/contents from other TLDs to their sponsored gTLD'. Even when some one has capability to block root level access to xxx TLD, they will have support from human right and even through IG for openness, accessibility and Internet for everyone. Practically, when you provide them space to rule as independent state, that does not mean you are reducing their influence and accessibility/ and confined. We should not hesitate to accept that worst this also happen and one wrong decision has taken favorable to accept xxx sTLD. Imran ------------------------------ On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 2:35 AM PKT Fouad Bajwa wrote: >Actually this is one important aspect of ICANN in the IG discourse. >One common belief among some people I the GAC that I know was that >with the .xxx approval could provide them a simpler ground for >banning, blocking, filtering and censorship just based on a simple >"anything + .xxx" blanket block and for some others it wasn't a bad >idea either. For the people in the porn industry, well they have their >own story which is not the issue here but I know a lot of people in >the SF ICANN meeting that displayed the We Support .XXX GTLD badge >just to be on the blocking side of the table. > >On the other discussion of legality, ICANN subject to US based >California laws can face injunctions, petitions and cases against its >judgements. This may actually come more into play when the new GTLD >approvals go forward. There might be resulting anger and counter >attempts to stop parties from launching their new gtlds but yes it is >yet unforeseen. I see new gtld stakeholder parties outside the US less >capable to do it unless they have branches in the US and can file and >pursue the cases. > >Its still a very US centric game field. > >Best > >Fouad > >On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > wrote: >> Fouad, >> >> that can only be tested in practice. Someone (or many "ones") must have >> already had this idea and studied the case. If it hasn't yet been attempted >> it may be that these "ones" concluded that the risk of not having a case >> they could win was too high for the cost-benefit ratio they were looking >> after. >> >> But we'll never know until it happens or some as-yet unknown stories are >> told. >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> >> ! !! !!! !!!! >> NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO >> >> >> >> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD >> >> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO >> >> SMS +525541444475 >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> >> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, >> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >> ----> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >> ________________________________ >> Desde: Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] >> Enviado el: sábado, 04 de agosto de 2012 15:12 >> Hasta: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> CC: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch >> >> Asunto: Re: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from >> New .com Deal >> >> Is it possible that someone with the right kind of legal backing and >> financial strength can drag ICANN to court and get an injunction at any >> point on both of the .xxx and new gtld go ahead to limit further activities >> on both? >> >> Fouad Bajwa >> >> On Aug 5, 2012 12:52 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> wrote: >> >> Slight edits: >> >> Fahd: What makes things even worst is that many board members (in their >> capacity as employers of their respective firms) benifited their respective >> employers with the approval of the New gTLD program. Even more, some past >> board members jumped to greener shores with business ventures elsewhere (and >> I am sure you know what I exactly mean). >> >> Sal: Yes, that literally enraged the wider global community in terms of >> "conflict of interest" management. The reality is that situation boiled down >> to personal integrity and ethics as there was nothing in writing concerning >> that specific situation. This was of course addressed through rigorous >> consultations with the global community so that it never happens again. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sat Aug 4 23:50:27 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 03:50:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DD066@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> 1. How did the board approve .xxx while the community was against it. [Milton L Mueller] That's easy. First, there was no unified view on .xxx. The term "the community" should never be used, certainly not with a definite article, because there is never unanimity in a global constituency. It is like asking whether "the community" is Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist or Atheist. The answer is Yes. And if you want to avoid the kind of religious warfare and repression that devastated Europe for two centuries and which still haunts the middle east, you will avoid the whole notion that there is a homogeneous community that can impose its will on all of us. That leads to the second point. New TLDs are a form of expression and no community, no matter how large the majority, has the right to censor them unless their use violates some other human right or breaks some law. If you don't like the kinds of things that might be registered under .xxx, don't go to the websites. Simple as that. 1. How did the board approve the New gTLD program while many answers and concerns were unanswered. [Milton L Mueller] This is an unrealistic perspective. There will always be uncertainty and opposition when anything important is involved. If governments or businesses were not allowed to make a move unless all uncertainties were removed and no one had any "concerns," then no one would be able to do anything. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sat Aug 4 23:56:22 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 03:56:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DD080@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> On conflict of interest, I think you are overstating the problem. One board member - who had been an advocate of new gTLDs for literally TWELVE YEARS before the decision was made - joined a new TLD company AFTER he stepped down as Board chair. I think it is false to suggest that this person supported the policy simply because of business opportunities that were presented to him later. I will admit that the optics were bad and that ICANN should have a "time out" policy regarding its Board members in the future, but I also am tired of the idea that the whole new gTLD program can be attributed to a sleazy conflict of interest. This issue has been discussed and debated interminably since 1996. There would have been stronger accusations of massive conflicts of interest had ICANN _not_ approved a new gTLD program (protecting the monopolies of existing players). From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 3:52 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Fahd A. Batayneh Cc: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal Slight edits: Fahd: What makes things even worst is that many board members (in their capacity as employers of their respective firms) benifited their respective employers with the approval of the New gTLD program. Even more, some past board members jumped to greener shores with business ventures elsewhere (and I am sure you know what I exactly mean). Sal: Yes, that literally enraged the wider global community in terms of "conflict of interest" management. The reality is that situation boiled down to personal integrity and ethics as there was nothing in writing concerning that specific situation. This was of course addressed through rigorous consultations with the global community so that it never happens again. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun Aug 5 00:00:31 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 04:00:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DD0A2@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Is it possible that someone with the right kind of legal backing and financial strength can drag ICANN to court and get an injunction at any point on both of the .xxx and new gtld go ahead to limit further activities on both? [Milton L Mueller] No. And even if it were possible you do not want that to happen. The next TLD held up by an injunction may be your own. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Aug 5 01:38:55 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 11:08:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> Message-ID: <501E06EF.80201@itforchange.net> One thing in the news item on the renewal of .com agreement interested me a lot. "The deal is currently under review by the US Department of Commerce and Bidzos said he expects it to be approved before November 30, when the current contract expires." I did not know that US government exercised review over ICANN's routine contract renewals. So much for the claims that US hardly exercises any 'real' or 'in effect' oversight role over ICANN./*Can anyone provide us a list of what all decisions of ICANN are subject to US gov's review and confirmation*/, /*and in what manner.*/ This will help one form a good view of what really is the oversight role with US at present, something which has always been so much in the eye of the storm. I direct this question especially at those who seem so awfully disappointed that despite the best efforts of ICANN/ technical community, most outsiders, especially those with pathological political sensitivities, simply are not able to understand much :). Pl note that the above is a simple and direct question, and should be able to have a clear and direct response. I am sure ICANN insiders would know the answer. parminder On Saturday 04 August 2012 12:37 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > This can be understood in terms of path dependency as well as Public > Choice theory... at some level of abstraction. > > > On 2012/08/03 02:48 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> The financial aspect and opportunities will always be there because at >> the end of the day, we see a lot of stuff that inclines towards >> benefiting the domain industry. >> >> Best >> >> Fouad >> >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh >> wrote: >>> http://domainincite.com/9845-icann-to-get-8-million-more-from-new-com-deal >>> >>> >>> I wonder if this was the reason why ICANN renewed the .com agreement in >>> favor of VeriSign Inc., causing lots of controversy and question marks >>> within the ICANN community. >>> >>> Fahd >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> list mailing list >>> list at igfarab.org >>> http://mail.igfarab.org/mailman/listinfo/list >>> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Aug 5 02:18:19 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 07:18:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register In-Reply-To: References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message , at 05:38:42 on Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Fouad Bajwa writes >On a desperate and separate note, some countries nearer to my part of the >world have quietly put in policies quietly through non public directives >for censorship, filtering, blocking and DPI surveillance wahay before they >announced preparation for WCIT/ITRs. > >For us from this part of the world, the real threat is no more the WCIT/ITR >recommendations but what are countries doing prior to influence and >ascertain their positions and proposals. > >We can rant about IGF's lack of outcomes, IBSA, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, UN >Centric Internet Control and Policing, ITU and WCIT/ITRs, educating >ministers, unilateral propaganda behind a limited IG issue but the reality >is that Internet Access Denied is happening behind the curtains, a >submarine cable termination points on to the national trunks, US and >Canadian companies are selling heaps of surveillance software and hardware >for DPI in the name of cyber security but we are engrossed in gacs and lack >of routing knowledge. There are many different issues that Internet users might be concerned about. State surveillance is just one of them. It's not advisable, to concentrate on just one at the exclusion of all others - even if it were possible to agree on just one issue, which I'm sure it isn't. However, it's very helpful when tackling any of the issues to understand the basic concepts of the Internet, whether those are architectural or policy based. The root name server system is one of the most fundamental (but nevertheless still only one of many). An interesting question to ask is: "If nations are convinced that all traffic flows through the root servers, why not attach your state surveillance equipment there. It would seem to be a very economical solution". But we don't hear debates about whether that would be a good or bad thing (either technically or politically), nor do we hear arguments raging about the Dutch Government handing data siphoned off from RIPE NCC's root server to less friendly governments. Many users are more worried about spam than surveillance, and the mythical flow through the root servers would be a good place to install filters for that. But we aren't exposed to debates about what anti-spam rules to install in Netnod's root server. So something's not quite right with the model (that all the traffic flows through 13 hot-spots), and putting that right is an important bit of "human capacity building" before discussions about other aspects can take place in a sensible fashion. ps. Another misconception I've heard is that all emails are sent to every user in the world, and when you set up your email client with your particular email address the job it does is ignore all the emails apart from the ones addressed to you. And hence spam is mainly a result of that filtering process breaking in some way - so you get lots of emails that weren't really intended for you. Lots wrong with that picture too, of course. Although it's not that far off the way ethernet works on a local segment, so perhaps that's how the misconception arose in that person's mind. > >When do we set our concerns straight? Who is "we"? Anyone can start immediately if they wish. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Aug 5 02:28:22 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 07:28:22 +0100 Subject: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? (was: Re: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?India=27s_communications_minister_-_root_server_misunderstandin?= =?UTF-8?Q?g_=28still=E2=80=A6=29=29?= In-Reply-To: <1ADD48F6-FFA6-48ED-8992-4AA4B5C6932E@istaff.org> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC994@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1ADD48F6-FFA6-48ED-8992-4AA4B5C6932E@istaff.org> Message-ID: In message <1ADD48F6-FFA6-48ED-8992-4AA4B5C6932E at istaff.org>, at 19:40:00 on Fri, 3 Aug 2012, John Curran writes >Milton - > > I don't see the USG making policy for DNS names or IP address management, > and yet setting such policy was definitely done in long past by folks operating > under USG contracts. Policy development is now undertaken by multi-stakeholder > participants in the community. Are you aware of critical Internet resource policy > being set by USG via its unique IANA contract relationship? There are several policy issues encapsulated in the IANA contract, that have not been through ICANN's traditional PDP. The most obvious being that IANA should be on US soil, but here are several others of that ilk. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Aug 5 02:42:33 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 07:42:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: In message , at 08:27:05 on Fri, 3 Aug 2012, David Conrad writes >> Or when they ask "why" do they really mean "why was any limit at all >>designed in?" Perhaps I'll look into that as well - maybe the answer >>is "because we never expected there ever to be more than 13". > >I believe the 512 byte limit was a more-or-less arbitrary selection >that fit within what was deemed to be the maximum that could reasonably >be supported in the typical infrastructure of the day (circa mid-80s). >It also corresponded roughly with a similar arbitrary limit specified >in an earlier core protocol, TCP. A 512 byte limit per packet is understandable, but the queries could have been designed to cope with multiple packets. >Originally, I believe there were only 2 root servers. When those 2 >began to get overloaded, Postel asked some Usual Suspects to host more >(in the late 80s, I was working at the University of Maryland Computer >Science Center when TERP.UMD.EDU (now known as D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET) was >set up). The last of the 13 weren't assigned until the mid- to late-90s). Interesting that it was load, rather than a desire for more resilience that triggered the roll-out. Of course, in those days most Internet connectivity really did go to the USA and back (if not to the root servers and back) so a predominance of root servers in the USA was architecturally desirable, as well as potentially being just a historical accident. >However, back when Mockapetris was finalizing the DNS specifications, I >suspect the idea that root servers would become political footballs >and/or viewed as a critical component of Internet governance would have >been seen as laughable, so the idea of supporting more root servers for >non-technical reasons wouldn't even have come up. I was at a CSTD meeting a couple of years ago, and there was a complaint that Africa had no root servers, but it was easy to point out there were four in Johannesburg, let alone other parts of the continent. Obviously, these are anycast instances, so the existence of these needs to be better advertised to the relevant parties (as I've written about a few days ago). -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Aug 5 03:09:28 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 09:09:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] UN & Information Security References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD094@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://ict4peace.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Eneken-GGE-2012-Brief.pdf wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Aug 5 03:12:17 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 08:12:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] US will push for open markets, free expression at ITU meeting | ITworld In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8+oWNHbRzhHQFAHj@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 00:06:42 on Fri, 3 Aug 2012, Ivar A. M. Hartmann writes >The problem is that free markets are increasingly hostile to free speech: >when companies control the online fora and are left to discriminate speech >at will we have a scenario that's arguably just as bad as an ITU-controlled >internet. >Sadly, because the prevailing notion in American law and politics is that >only the state can violate human rights, such a problem will never get the >proper framing. Perhaps you are talking about the Human Right to freedom of expression? There are several other Human Rights (eg life, freedom from slavery) which are clearly applicable to non-state actors, and even the right to privacy is generally extended to acts by persons and companies, as well as the state (see for example the EU's Data Protection Directive, which applies to all). -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Aug 5 05:55:17 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 11:55:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] CensorFree References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD094@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD096@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pouwelse-censorfree-scenarios-01 FYI wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Sun Aug 5 06:28:49 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 06:28:49 -0400 Subject: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? (was: Re: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?India=27s_communications_minister_-_root_server_misunder?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?standing_=28still=85=29=29?= In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC994@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1ADD48F6-FFA6-48ED-8992-4AA4B5C6932E@istaff.org> Message-ID: <3FB78F2E-A025-4F29-9AD2-E2DB1B896128@istaff.org> On Aug 5, 2012, at 2:28 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <1ADD48F6-FFA6-48ED-8992-4AA4B5C6932E at istaff.org>, at 19:40:00 on Fri, 3 Aug 2012, John Curran writes >> Milton - >> >> I don't see the USG making policy for DNS names or IP address management, >> and yet setting such policy was definitely done in long past by folks operating >> under USG contracts. Policy development is now undertaken by multi-stakeholder >> participants in the community. Are you aware of critical Internet resource policy >> being set by USG via its unique IANA contract relationship? > > There are several policy issues encapsulated in the IANA contract, that have not been through ICANN's traditional PDP. The most obvious being that IANA should be on US soil, but here are several others of that ilk. Roland - Indeed, and there were even more such policy issues encapsulated back when the JPA was also operative. Note, however, that these sorts of policy dictates via contract have been reduced over the 20-plus year transition from direct contracting for these services to the more multi-stakeholder-based mechanisms for setting policy. The point was that this reduction in USG-directed policy would not have been possible if USG held to "a posture of total unwillingness"; I did not mean to imply that there was not more work to be done, only that we should not shy away from considering how IANA should evolve under some misapprehension that the views of the global Internet community cannot have any impact in this matter. /John Disclaimer: My views alone. No fiscal union is created by this email message, and the value of this message may widely fluctuate over time. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Aug 5 07:47:00 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 17:17:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> On Friday 03 August 2012 02:36 AM, David Conrad wrote: > (snip) > While I personally believe existence and an ability to perform a function does imply some level of legitimacy (perhaps this comes from sitting through too many presentations describing the wonders of unreleased software :-)), I don't think this is particularly relevant to how the technical community can improve the understanding of the technological underpinnings of the Internet. My question isn't about how ICANN can justify what it does, it's about how we in the technical community can get those outside that community to understand "this is how the Internet works". David, Since you (and, perhaps, some others) have sincerely asked what can the 'technical community' do to make others, chiefly, policy makers, understand 'this is how the Internet works', let me try to respond with all sincerity, as I really see it. I think you are quite wrong here, that 'legitimacy' or 'how ICANN can justify what it does' has nothing to do with how the proposed understanding of 'how the Internet works' is conveyed. My contention is that these issues are very basically connected. Riaz has made this point quite well, and often rather eloquently, in a few of his recent emails, but let me summarise. The basic problem here is that the so called 'technical community' is indeed largely what may in fact be called as the ICANN/ISOC community. It does not consist of all the people who have sound technical knowledge about the subject, it systematically attracts, encourages and organises (even, variously, incentivizes) those who can largely defend a certain techno-political status quo around the Internet. And it equally, discourages, distances, dis-incentivizes, and disables possibilities of organising of those technically- knowledgeable people who could offer 'neutral' or factual views, and, certainly, those who could advocate techno- political alternatives. As a result, what we have as the most visible, active etc 'technical community' is indeed, often, directly or indirectly, aggressively or more subtly, found as trying to 'justify what ICANN does'. Here 'what ICANN does' becomes a place-holder for the current techno-political paradigm around the Internet. (Apart from how we are mostly faced with actors with some degree of closeness if not embeddedness into the ICANN/ISOC system, there indeed is the factor of 'Californian ideology ' political proclivities of a certain dominant and ascendant techie group, in general. This later point admits of somewhat different political analysis which i wont go into here.) Now, there is nothing wrong in holding a techno-political outlook and philosophy. Indeed, my organisation and I do. However, and this is my main point, there is everything wrong in holding such a outlook, and professing that one does not, and behaving as one is merely providing 'neutral' technical details. I have found very few people on this list, if any, merely provide technical facts, in that sense. Everything has been thoroughly wrapped in a certain techno -political viewpoint, in fact, mostly, in quite a strong techno-social viewpoint. A 'technical community' committed to such specific and clear 'techno-political' viewpoint can do very little to improve the understanding of political actors, who could have different base political positions, or at least would want to keep alternatives open. It is my view that this is '/the/' key issue at the bottom of what we see here often as the display of disappointment/ dismay by many of the 'technical community' or close-about on this list about what seems to them as such poor understanding of political actors, and their pious statements of desire to do something about to improve it. regards parminder > > Regards, > -drc > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Aug 5 08:40:19 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 18:10:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> On Sunday 05 August 2012 05:17 PM, parminder wrote: > (snip) > > A 'technical community' committed to such specific and clear > 'techno-political' viewpoint can do very little to improve the > understanding of political actors, who could have different base > political positions, or at least would want to keep alternatives open. > It is my view that this is '/the/' key issue at the bottom of what we > see here often as the display of disappointment/ dismay by many of the > 'technical community' or close-about on this list about what seems to > them as such poor understanding of political actors, and their pious > statements of desire to do something about to improve it. Let me illustrate my point by referring to the case under discussion, of root servers and geopolitical IG inequity. There has been a lengthy discussion on this subject on this list, but I remain unclear about some of the most important 'facts' with regard to the statement of the problem being 'what is the connection between the root server architecture and geopolitical IG equity or inequity'. Can we first agree that this is indeed the main question that we are addressing? Let me proceed with the assumption that we do agree on this. 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 . 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. This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual neutral/ technical information. The political motivation is to defend the techno- political status, which in this case is best defended by 'showing' that power is indeed already distributed and not centralised. Such a motivation has clearly led to, and I repeat, overplay of the non- difference among the three root server layers and underplay of the difference, which has left most of us technically mis-informed. I am making the point that the fault here is not necessarily on the side receiving technical wisdom. In an earlier long discussion on US oversight role, a few weeks back, we went back and forth on how the 13 root servers could, and likely would, act independently of the authoritative root server with Verisign...... I felt that those professing technical knowledge clearly were more interested in demonstrating one side of the view rather than the other, which focusses on the hierarchy (and difference) between the two root server layers ....... The present discussion has focussed more on the difference/ non-difference between the 13 root servers and their numerous anycast mirrors. So much indeed has been said as if there is really no difference, to the extent ridiculing the African minister, who seems to have said at some meeting that there are no root servers in Africa, through a retort that there are two in J'berg itself, where the meeting seem to have taken place. Is it indeed that there is absolutely no difference between root servers and their mirrors, and if there is, indeed, what is it? This question requires a non politically motivated response, of which there has been a great dearth of in the present discussion. Is the difference so less that the African minister could be ridiculed in this manner? And if indeed, there is no or ittle difference why stick to this 1-13-others hierarchy. Why not go to 1-all others system (since I understand that 'one authoritative root' is an issue of a different level). We read in the discussions that the limit of 13 no longer is meaningful. So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the world happy. 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. I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of these root servers. Is it really true? Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to what goes in and from the authoritative root server. 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? I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 root server operators, so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not physical location points. 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. Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the present debate. Any answers? Also better clarity will be useful about the process of setting up anycast mirrors. Are they to seek a relationship with a specific root server or can they be set up just like that.... 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. If this is the base political question, then let us discuss it as the main political question. Parminder > > regards > parminder > >> Regards, >> -drc >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Aug 5 09:11:04 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 18:41:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <501E70E8.90609@itforchange.net> On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: > (snip) > > Also better clarity will be useful about the process of setting up > anycast mirrors. Are they to seek a relationship with a specific root > server or can they be set up just like that.... I read from http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/2003-September/001075.html that anycast root mirrors can be under very tight control of the root server operator, so much so that ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast operator to his own anycast server. Well!! This is a pretty centralised control, 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. Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? Is this the kind of informing the un-informed one seeks to do, that has been much spoken of here. The un-informed are rightly cautious of 'being informed', i'd say. parminder > > 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. If this is > the base political question, then let us discuss it as the main > political question. > > Parminder > >> >> regards >> parminder >> >>> Regards, >>> -drc >>> >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Sun Aug 5 10:48:58 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 07:48:58 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: <501E06EF.80201@itforchange.net> References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <501E06EF.80201@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, On Aug 4, 2012, at 10:38 PM, parminder wrote: > I did not know that US government exercised review over ICANN's routine contract renewals. It doesn't (AFAIK). I believe .COM/.NET are special because the USG has a contractual (cooperative agreemental?) relationship with Verisign related to the management of those zones that predates ICANN. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Aug 5 12:19:22 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 17:19:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501E70E8.90609@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <501E70E8.90609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4BuniKHK0pHQFAkd@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <501E70E8.90609 at itforchange.net>, at 18:41:04 on Sun, 5 Aug 2012, parminder writes > >I read from >http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/2003-September/001075.html  >that anycast root mirrors can be under very tight control of the root >server operator, so much so that ' administrative access will not be >available' to the anycast operator to his own anycast server. Well!! >This is a pretty centralised control, 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. Anyone can host such a server (and the local community gets the main benefit); but I don't think there's ever been a suggestion they would control it (other than being able to switch it off). The control is decentralised because there are several independent operators amongst the 13. We've seen how the "13" is limited because of a historical accident when the system was originally designed, but how many do you think would make things "better"? It's the same order of magnitude as the number of operators of gTLDs (until mid 2013, anyway). Are there many ccTLDs with more than one operator for its name servers (most have more than one hosted mirror, that doesn't count for this purpose). It's one thing to have lots of instances of root name servers around the world, but how many instances of (eg) .org or .com servers are there outside Europe/USA - they are just as vital, if anything more vital, to resolving DNS queries as the root servers. >Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? Each were wrong, but in different ways. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sun Aug 5 12:22:50 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 19:22:50 +0300 Subject: [governance] US will push for open markets, free expression at ITU meeting | ITworld In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Looking at the ICANN website at http://www.icann.org/en/about/welcome, the term "*coordinate*" is used. However, as one reads on, it is mentioned that "*The world broadly accepts ICANN as the place to work out Internet governance policies*". I think this phrase is larger than ICANN's true size. Fahd On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message Q at mail.gmail.com >, at 14:11:03 on Fri, 3 Aug 2012, > Fahd A. Batayneh writes > > The article mentions "Also at WCIT, Russia, China and other countries may >> push for the ITU to take Internet governance away from the Internet >> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and other organizations" >> >> Another misconception! Since when did "ICANN and other Organizations" >> govern the Internet >> > > They appear to me to govern the processes of issuing new TLDs and address > space, and policing some (but not all) kinds of abusive registration. So, > as ever, it depends what you mean by IG, and what others think they want to > 'take away' from existing stewards. > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Sun Aug 5 13:10:14 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 10:10:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> Parminder, On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder wrote: > 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 . No. There is a "distribution master". This is a machine that allows for zone transfer of the root zone data maintained by the "root management partners" (ICANN, Verisign, U.S. Dept. of Commerce NTIA) by anyone that holds the private root zone TSIG key (password). It is not publicly accessible and does not (I believe) respond to any DNS query other that "AXFR" (zone transfer), "IXFR" (incremental zone transfer), and "SOA" (start of authority, used to figure out if a server needs to do a zone transfer). As such, it is not a "root server". There are "root servers". These are devices that are numbered with one of 13 IP(v4) addresses listed in http://www.internic.net/domain/named.root to which the root zone is transferred and which respond to all DNS queries with referrals to top-level domains (exceptions being for queries for data in the root-servers.net and arpa zones which are co-resident with the root zone on 12 of the root servers). That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. The devices that make up the root servers vary from single machines in one geographical location (this describes "B" and "D") to clusters of machines either localized or spread out geographically using "anycast" (this describes all the other root servers). Within the latter, there are different distribution models primarily to limit the load on the "distribution master". In many cases (particularly for the root servers that have many machines), there is an "internal distribution master" that fetches the zone from the "real" distribution master and makes it available to all the other machines for that root server. In other cases, each individual machine that makes up the root server fetches the root zone from the "real" distribution master directly. I should probably note that any resolver operator can (assuming their resolver is capable of it which most are) mirror the root zone into their resolver, but this doesn't make that resolver a root server since it doesn't have one of the 13 IP(v4) addresses. > 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. As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. > This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual neutral/ technical information. Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to communicate. As you have assumed conspiracy, I suspect trying to explain further is pointless since presumably I and anyone else who tries to disabuse you of your beliefs would obviously be part of the conspiracy. I will, however, continue trying since http://www.xkcd.com/386/. > We read in the discussions that the limit of 13 no longer is meaningful. 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. > So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the world happy. Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own root server would make the people of the world happy. > 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. 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". 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? > I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of these root servers. Is it really true? Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". > Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to what goes in and from the authoritative root server. Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is distributed. > 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? 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. 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. > I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 root server operators, Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). > so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not physical location points. In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. > 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. 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 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). > Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the present debate. Any answers? 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. > 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. 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. Merging a subsequent note: On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: > ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast operator to his own anycast server. 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. > This is a pretty centralised control, 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. 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? 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. > Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? Yes. Really. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Sun Aug 5 13:50:24 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 10:50:24 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1F93AC16-DA23-4B21-A7B0-C57FCE2F116B@virtualized.org> Parminder, On Aug 5, 2012, at 4:47 AM, parminder wrote: >> While I personally believe existence and an ability to perform a function does imply some level of legitimacy (perhaps this comes from sitting through too many presentations describing the wonders of unreleased software :-)), I don't think this is particularly relevant to how the technical community can improve the understanding of the technological underpinnings of the Internet. My question isn't about how ICANN can justify what it does, it's about how we in the technical community can get those outside that community to understand "this is how the Internet works". > > David, Since you (and, perhaps, some others) have sincerely asked what can the 'technical community' do to make others, chiefly, policy makers, understand 'this is how the Internet works', let me try to respond with all sincerity, as I really see it. Thanks! > The basic problem here is that the so called 'technical community' is indeed largely what may in fact be called as the ICANN/ISOC community. It does not consist of all the people who have sound technical knowledge about the subject, it systematically attracts, encourages and organises (even, variously, incentivizes) those who can largely defend a certain techno-political status quo around the Internet. And it equally, discourages, distances, dis-incentivizes, and disables possibilities of organising of those technically- knowledgeable people who could offer 'neutral' or factual views, and, certainly, those who could advocate techno- political alternatives. I note you imply that "the ICANN/ISOC community" does/can not offer neutral or factual views. An interesting bias. > As a result, what we have as the most visible, active etc 'technical community' is indeed, often, directly or indirectly, aggressively or more subtly, found as trying to 'justify what ICANN does'. Here 'what ICANN does' becomes a place-holder for the current techno-political paradigm around the Internet. Alternatively, one could view the comments of the 'technical community' as trying to describe the on-the-ground technical reality of the Internet as it is now and the historical/pragmatic justifications for that reality. This does not necessarily imply that there are no alternative ways things can be done in the future or even that the way things are being done is the best way, rather it is simply a description of the way things are now. > Now, there is nothing wrong in holding a techno-political outlook and philosophy. Indeed, my organisation and I do. However, and this is my main point, there is everything wrong in holding such a outlook, and professing that one does not, and behaving as one is merely providing 'neutral' technical details. I have found very few people on this list, if any, merely provide technical facts, in that sense. Everything has been thoroughly wrapped in a certain techno -political viewpoint, in fact, mostly, in quite a strong techno-social viewpoint. Can you provide examples of things that are 'thoroughly wrapped in a certain techno-political viewpoint"? > A 'technical community' committed to such specific and clear 'techno-political' viewpoint can do very little to improve the understanding of political actors, who could have different base political positions, or at least would want to keep alternatives open. It is my view that this is 'the' key issue at the bottom of what we see here often as the display of disappointment/ dismay by many of the 'technical community' or close-about on this list about what seems to them as such poor understanding of political actors, and their pious statements of desire to do something about to improve it. When someone makes a statement like "Globally, internet traffic passes through 13 root servers.", there can be no techno-political viewpoint regarding the current Internet in which this is accurate. It is simply and plainly wrong. It is equivalent to stating "1+1=3". When that person is responsible for communications infrastructure/policy within a country, I personally find this distressing and my engineering background causes me to ask how I can help fix it. Now, if you are saying that politicians voluntarily choose to ignore reality in order to drive a particular agenda, I can understand that (after all, I live in a country where stuff like http://news.yahoo.com/law-north-carolina-bans-latest-scientific-predictions-sea-165416121--abc-news-topstories.html happens), however this has nothing to do with the "techno-political status quo", rather it is simply sticking ones head in the sand and should draw universal condemnation. Regards -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Sun Aug 5 14:49:39 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 15:49:39 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] CensorFree In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD096@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD094@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD096@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <00ae01cd733b$14e35580$3eaa0080$@uol.com.br> Thank you for sharing Wolfgang! All the best. Vanda scartezini -----Mensagem original----- De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Enviada em: domingo, 5 de agosto de 2012 06:55 Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Assunto: [governance] CensorFree http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pouwelse-censorfree-scenarios-01 FYI wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Aug 5 15:12:52 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 00:42:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, On Aug 5, 2012 6:10 PM, "parminder" wrote: > > > On Sunday 05 August 2012 05:17 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> (snip) >> >> >> A 'technical community' committed to such specific and clear 'techno-political' viewpoint can do very little to improve the understanding of political actors, who could have different base political positions, or at least would want to keep alternatives open. It is my view that this is 'the' key issue at the bottom of what we see here often as the display of disappointment/ dismay by many of the 'technical community' or close-about on this list about what seems to them as such poor understanding of political actors, and their pious statements of desire to do something about to improve it. > > > Let me illustrate my point by referring to the case under discussion, of root servers and geopolitical IG inequity. There has been a lengthy discussion on this subject on this list, but I remain unclear about some of the most important 'facts' with regard to the statement of the problem being 'what is the connection between the root server architecture and geopolitical IG equity or inequity'. Can we first agree that this is indeed the main question that we are addressing? Let me proceed with the assumption that we do agree on this. > > 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 . > > 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. This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual neutral/ technical information. The political motivation is to defend the techno- political status, which in this case is best defended by 'showing' that power is indeed already distributed and not centralised. Such a motivation has clearly led to, and I repeat, overplay of the non- difference among the three root server layers and underplay of the difference, which has left most of us technically mis-informed. I am making the point that the fault here is not necessarily on the side receiving technical wisdom. > > In an earlier long discussion on US oversight role, a few weeks back, we went back and forth on how the 13 root servers could, and likely would, act independently of the authoritative root server with Verisign...... I felt that those professing technical knowledge clearly were more interested in demonstrating one side of the view rather than the other, which focusses on the hierarchy (and difference) between the two root server layers ....... > > The present discussion has focussed more on the difference/ non-difference between the 13 root servers and their numerous anycast mirrors. So much indeed has been said as if there is really no difference, to the extent ridiculing the African minister, who seems to have said at some meeting that there are no root servers in Africa, through a retort that there are two in J'berg itself, where the meeting seem to have taken place. > > Is it indeed that there is absolutely no difference between root servers and their mirrors, and if there is, indeed, what is it? This question requires a non politically motivated response, of which there has been a great dearth of in the present discussion. Is the difference so less that the African minister could be ridiculed in this manner? And if indeed, there is no or ittle difference why stick to this 1-13-others hierarchy. Why not go to 1-all others system (since I understand that 'one authoritative root' is an issue of a different level). > > We read in the discussions that the limit of 13 no longer is meaningful. So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the world happy. 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. > > I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of these root servers. Is it really true? Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to what goes in and from the authoritative root server. 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? > > I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 root server operators, so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not physical location points. 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 Thank you for mentioning my name in reference to what I have written earlier on this and another thread. I did mention the Indian Institute of Technology but in one of the paragraphs above you said - BEGIN QUOTE - Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate root servers in a geo-graphically equitable manner, as Sivasubramanian has suggested - END QUOTE - That is not the language I used. The same idea with your argument and rationale?, -expressed with your convenient distortions- becomes destructive. While David Conrad has subsequently corrected you on the technical flaws of your assumption, I will sit and pray that your flawed eloquent verbosity on policy aspects does not impress anyone in our Government this time. Sivasubramanian M. Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the present debate. Any answers? > > Also better clarity will be useful about the process of setting up anycast mirrors. Are they to seek a relationship with a specific root server or can they be set up just like that.... > > 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. If this is the base political question, then let us discuss it as the main political question. > > Parminder > >> >> regards >> parminder >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> -drc >>> >>> >>> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Aug 5 17:10:39 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:10:39 +1200 Subject: [governance] US will push for open markets, free expression at ITU meeting | ITworld In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Looking at the ICANN website at http://www.icann.org/en/about/welcome, > the term "*coordinate*" is used. However, as one reads on, it is > mentioned that "*The world broadly accepts ICANN as the place to work out > Internet governance policies*". I think this phrase is larger than > ICANN's true size. > You are right. The Internet Universe (note I am not using the ISOC term of Internet Ecosystem to appease critics of ISOC on the list - as far as I know this was coined by the South Koreans) has an entire host of players and stakeholders that look after various policy areas and spaces. The work of mapping Internet Governance done through the sponsorship of Consumers International and Norbert Bollow highlights this important work see: http://idgovmap.org/ What appears to be missing is how all stakeholders can work together as netizens for the betterment of all - what is acceptable behaviour, what does transparency look like. I think one of the things that is causing nations and people to jump up and down is para 15 of the WGIG document which reads *Unilateral control by the United States Government.* Governments around the world have more power over their Registrars and Resellers and can enforce things like mandatory Whois data. ICANN is *limited* in the scope, see below. ICANN does not govern the Internet. It is not the place to work out Internet governance policies as it only looks after a few of the policy areas identified in the WGIG 2005 Report [http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf see pages 5-8] It says so too within the ICANN Articles of Incorporation, see excerpts below: In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, *owned by no single nation*, individual or organization, the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 5 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv). 4. The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with these Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To this effect, the *Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant international organizations*. > > > Fahd > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Roland Perry < > roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > >> In message > Q at mail.gmail.com >, at 14:11:03 on Fri, 3 Aug 2012, >> Fahd A. Batayneh writes >> >> The article mentions "Also at WCIT, Russia, China and other countries >>> may push for the ITU to take Internet governance away from the Internet >>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and other organizations" >>> >>> Another misconception! Since when did "ICANN and other Organizations" >>> govern the Internet >>> >> >> They appear to me to govern the processes of issuing new TLDs and address >> space, and policing some (but not all) kinds of abusive registration. So, >> as ever, it depends what you mean by IG, and what others think they want to >> 'take away' from existing stewards. >> -- >> Roland Perry >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Aug 5 17:12:03 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:12:03 +1200 Subject: [governance] US will push for open markets, free expression at ITU meeting | ITworld In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Correction Governments around the world have more power over their Registrars and Resellers and can enforce things like mandatory "accuracy" of Whois data. On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Looking at the ICANN website at http://www.icann.org/en/about/welcome, >> the term "*coordinate*" is used. However, as one reads on, it is >> mentioned that "*The world broadly accepts ICANN as the place to work >> out Internet governance policies*". I think this phrase is larger than >> ICANN's true size. >> > > You are right. The Internet Universe (note I am not using the ISOC term > of Internet Ecosystem to appease critics of ISOC on the list - as far as I > know this was coined by the South Koreans) has an entire host of players > and stakeholders that look after various policy areas and spaces. The work > of mapping Internet Governance done through the sponsorship of Consumers > International and Norbert Bollow highlights this important work see: > http://idgovmap.org/ > > What appears to be missing is how all stakeholders can work together as > netizens for the betterment of all - what is acceptable behaviour, what > does transparency look like. I think one of the things that is causing > nations and people to jump up and down is para 15 of the WGIG document > which reads *Unilateral control by the United States Government.* > > Governments around the world have more power over their Registrars and > Resellers and can enforce things like mandatory Whois data. > > ICANN is *limited* in the scope, see below. ICANN does not govern the > Internet. It is not the place to work out Internet governance policies as > it only looks after a few of the policy areas identified in the WGIG 2005 > Report [http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf see pages 5-8] It says so > too within the ICANN Articles of Incorporation, see excerpts below: > > In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the fact > that the Internet is an international network of networks, *owned by no > single nation*, individual or organization, the Corporation shall, except > as limited by Article 5 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes > of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public > interest in the operational stability of the Internet by > > (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed > to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; > > (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of > the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space; > > (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of > the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of > policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level > domains are added to the DNS root system; > > (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server > system; and > > (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items > (i) through (iv). > 4. The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community > as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant > principles of international law and applicable international conventions > and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with these > Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes that enable > competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To this effect, the > *Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant international > organizations*. > >> >> >> Fahd >> >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Roland Perry < >> roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: >> >>> In message >> Q at mail.gmail.com >, at 14:11:03 on Fri, 3 Aug >>> 2012, Fahd A. Batayneh writes >>> >>> The article mentions "Also at WCIT, Russia, China and other countries >>>> may push for the ITU to take Internet governance away from the Internet >>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and other organizations" >>>> >>>> Another misconception! Since when did "ICANN and other Organizations" >>>> govern the Internet >>>> >>> >>> They appear to me to govern the processes of issuing new TLDs and >>> address space, and policing some (but not all) kinds of abusive >>> registration. So, as ever, it depends what you mean by IG, and what others >>> think they want to 'take away' from existing stewards. >>> -- >>> Roland Perry >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Aug 5 23:46:50 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 23:46:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501E70E8.90609@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <501E70E8.90609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 9:11 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: > > (snip) > > > Also better clarity will be useful about the process of setting up anycast > mirrors. Are they to seek a relationship with a specific root server or can > they be set up just like that.... > > > I read from > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/2003-September/001075.html > that anycast root mirrors can be under very tight control of the root server > operator, yes, this is how it should be. If you were a root-op, and it was your responsibility to ensure that all queries to your nameservers were given consistent answers, then you would not allow anyone else to admin those nameservers. so much so that ' administrative access will not be available' to > the anycast operator to his own anycast server. Well!! This is a pretty > centralised control, 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. I think DRC has answered all of your other points, but I would like to clarify one point. The org I work for now (ISC) spends a lot of money (although probably less than some other rootops) on running rootservices, and so folk who would like "F" servers are asked to pitch in a bit to help defray costs. If you can come up with an annual 6 figure amount in USD to operate a root server network, perhaps you could convince the DoD or NASA or UofMd to relinquish theirs. If you really want one that is, but I suspect you would rather complain about the status quo more than anything. What would be a a geographically "equitable manner" in which to distribute 13 rootserver functions across the globe in your opinion? >Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian > minister? deeply wrong > > Is this the kind of informing the un-informed one seeks to do, that has been > much spoken of here. The un-informed are rightly cautious of 'being > informed', i'd say. as others have pointed out, it's not the informing, but the listening that is the problem in this thread! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Aug 6 04:36:16 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:36:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <501F8200.6050400@gmail.com> David Thanks for the clarification. Parminder, Time to go to Karl's cavebear and dig out some of the issues he raised, like single point of failure, the misconception that the internet is merely a collection of nets etc... such a long time ago and such a boring escapade... and I share some sentiments that we are right back in 2003... But perhaps it is just as well I am an amateur (and an idiotic marginal one at that) that I can perhaps converse directly with Parminder's views *as if others were not around* - which is how this issue is dealt with by many others on this list - as if legitimacy was not an issue... so instead of talking at cross purposes let me converse with like-minded people like Parminder so they and others can see where we are coming from (although I am not speaking for Parminder, and it may sound like it, you specify where you are ad idem if necessary... this a horrible sarcastic caricature ... ) for others edification just to show them that there is an alternate conception of things out there (not better, not worse, just different... and perhaps if disinterested judgement is applied, PERHAPS a more reasonable in approach)... So Parminder, what I understand is that the system is designed in a particular way, has incorporated a number of changes, and is rather flexible - given certain constraints. Apparently the sense is that it should be alright now, at the technical level, to solve the legitimacy issues. There remains the socio-political issue of "control" (or to give Curran credence - participation) raised inaccurately and "deeply wrong" (which is a vice for Southerners but Northerners who talk about a single root are free from such aspersions - go figure) technically, but otherwise (socio-politically) remains in tact because neither GAC nor IGF deals with the issue to their satisfaction. Now conspiracy theories abound (unless of course one listened to commie Cuba or how Iraq was treated before the illegal invasion of Al Qaeeda infested Iraq -- if I recall correctly on both counts as I am not trawling through the web to find those references as it is tangential to my main point), but if there is no real problem with the architecture as it is, then why can governance structures not be changed in a way that maintains technical fidelity? See it is nice when we too ask questions (and to anticipate the droll responses - it is absolutely OK to have NO idea about the future shape, but to know that current arrangements are not ok, and others are invited to be pragmatic... see comments on evolution below). On the technical level, I think "autonomous internet" and "single root", these can be worked out and they are not so much of a problem as I read this stuff - techies are cool and love engineering around problems - ... and I am happy to be wrong and guided... On the socio-political level the argument made by those who "support" (said guardedly, with all necessary caveats) ICANN ask what do the likes of you/us want? I think this has been clear - *no technical administration without representation* - to paraphrase a famous tea party (although I do not want to confuse that one with modern adherents, the likes of whom seem to be on this list in large order - but that may just be my own jaundiced eye, but it is a pre-existing condition so well... ). So the more these fellows argue that "everything is alright" the more I get the sense that these arguments work adequately well for the other side (if the technical is so flexible, then it can work in a myriad of governance arrangement just so long as integrity (system and people) and testing is safeguarded - except for the actual shape of things to come. From a _truly_ evolutionary perspective this is not a problem. I suspect, however, that this argument is used to resist change so that the destination (proposed shape of arrangements) can be criticised as too sunny or cold as a substitute for setting upon the path of accepting a directionality to change (and here they are right we ARE STILL in 2003). The evolutionary spirit is that of *variety creation* (experimentation) leading to (natural iow political here) selection of what works - and this is the test of the pudding in the evolutionary system. Now if ICANN is more open to change than some civil society people here then it is unavoidable that one /reasonably/ can conclude they fall in as "true believers" or astroturfers without becoming a conspiracy theorist. Now it is ridiculous to assert (unless one is of John Bolton predisposition, or the Heritage Foundation - decidedly anti-UN) that one can handle matters of war and peace in the imperfect UN (or a really supercharged GAC, if one is open to change and take the Chinese proposal to heart as righteous and pious believers in the single root should - although I am not a confessor) but can't deal with this... /perhaps it is time to help them decolonise the evolutionary imagination... / You see because for single rooters, whose belief - and it is a belief - the Chinese proposal should be scary. Instead of beating the same drum they have been for ages - they do need to be keenly aware of how they_indict_ themselves in the socio-political realm (if one is disinterested). Talking as if they were not listening (to be clear because this is laden with assumptions that others could dispute, but I do not expect much from you), they should be scrambling for a solution because China may not be as powerful as the US but it has been patient and has a strong vested interest in maintaining control as it understands its political equations (if they misunderestimate this then well there is no helping them). When they don't scramble then it puts paid to all the (technical) bunkum that we had to deal with SINCE 2003 - statements and actions must match, and they were so dedicated to this view point. The indictment is the lack of depth or absence of discussion from a believers pov on this list (for "believers" it indicates that 'the way they believe what they believe' is as much of a problem as 'what is believed' - but perhaps I am too esoteric here). This is not so much of a problem for those who genuinely "buy" the ICANN-ish type line (recognising that they are more flexible than some in civil society) as they can self correct, but more of one for those "astro-turfers" (so to speak, based on genuince concerns about the Chinese proposal for single root rather than platitudes) - because the question is that when the contradictions become so glaringly obvious the "handlers" need to ask is "where can one find good help these days?" leading to the inevitable, "how dispensable are you?" For me 'dime a dozen' springs to mind, although there are some long haulers also - but for them the experience has brought less, rather than more, sophistication into civil society engagements imho. You see, because I am chastised for name-calling (which in the IT community I thought was par for the course, eg generally previous discussions on IETF modalities, and particularly on this list) when I was genuinely under the impression that this is the acceptable tenor of robust engagement (perhaps I am not that good at induction)... I hope to see some sincerity in those wishing to set the tone on this list to be even handed. Now I am under no impression that this will be done, but one must be optimistic. And because I come from a Third World Nationalist perspective (which is/one of many/ TW perspectives), let me put it like this, the issue of 'no technical administration with representation' is something that may seem irrational for those with the civilising mission. But self-determination and other issues (like sitting in the back of the bus) became mainstream nevertheless. That said, Third World countries have lots of problems, and corruption is certainly one of them - and especially as raised on this list needs to dealt with head on (I hope that this can be taken up and that the allegation is not left hanging as it so frequently is in our countries). But some perspective is in order, compared with Mortgage Backed Securities, Libor or the sum of issues that make up the Great Recession (we can't call it a depression, because well...) makes TWers look like petty thieves (and the rich countries always score highly on Transparency International's list - just look at Iceland's score in 2006!)... ...but more germane to the issues here is the serious violations that have occurred in the US and the rich countries (including expropriation of domain names by trade mark holders in the name of laws that were made up as things went along, violations of privacy, PATRIOTIC legislation. etc). See with this "wild west"/can do/"we the best" kind of attitude it makes it hard to have a decent conversation... (and I drip with sarcasm because I just do not like the pot calling the kettle black - I am odd like that I know, just can shake it though, but will try) ... it may come as a surprise to some, but what passes for progressive in some quarters would not pass muster elsewhere... I recall raising issues of conflict of interest once at a consultation, and was lambasted. This is NORMAL in these fora - if upstarts even question ICANN they must get their cumuppence. And boy do we get it and take it. But I why should I let a self-righteous tone kick me down? That we will be kicked down is a CERTAINTY, and we engage that knowing that while maintain faith in reason and the reality of choice - such hopeless romantics (sigh :) So let me be absolutely clear, better 'a might is right' than supposed ideological neutrality posing as universal. I can respect Avri when she expresses a preference for US over others (and it is understandable - at least the issue is contestable, if expensive, and there are some checks and balances. This candour of techies is appreciated - then we can have a real conversation and accept differences and work out stuff... taking into account relative power differences, values of equality which are put in practice (not some sublime impractical liberal assumption of formal equality) etc... But candour should not be confused with bullying and domination. Here at least people express themselves and are clear, instead of the constraining political correctness that bedogs other lists... And I am sorry if I have to dispel the petty illusions that some on this list seem to want to maintain (it is VERY important for them apparently). From a marginal,amateurish perspective there is not an iota of even handedness in many of the discussions, and the single rooters and obsequious ICANNers in civil society stand on notions that are threadbare (iow its time to up the game). If those who now want to make points about namecalling and do not want to be coarse, then they should step in with an even hand, and I will be first to admit that I am a muppet... but like peanut butter, it needs to be spread fairly... Riaz On 2012/08/05 07:10 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Parminder, > > On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder > wrote: >> 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 . > > No. > > There is a "distribution master". This is a machine that allows for > zone transfer of the root zone data maintained by the "root management > partners" (ICANN, Verisign, U.S. Dept. of Commerce NTIA) by anyone > that holds the private root zone TSIG key (password). It is not > publicly accessible and does not (I believe) respond to any DNS query > other that "AXFR" (zone transfer), "IXFR" (incremental zone transfer), > and "SOA" (start of authority, used to figure out if a server needs to > do a zone transfer). As such, it is not a "root server". > > There are "root servers". These are devices that are numbered with > one of 13 IP(v4) addresses listed in > http://www.internic.net/domain/named.root to which the root zone is > transferred and which respond to all DNS queries with referrals to > top-level domains (exceptions being for queries for data in the > root-servers.net and arpa zones which are > co-resident with the root zone on 12 of the root servers). > > That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true > root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. > The devices that make up the root servers vary from single machines in > one geographical location (this describes "B" and "D") to clusters of > machines either localized or spread out geographically using "anycast" > (this describes all the other root servers). Within the latter, there > are different distribution models primarily to limit the load on the > "distribution master". In many cases (particularly for the root > servers that have many machines), there is an "internal distribution > master" that fetches the zone from the "real" distribution master and > makes it available to all the other machines for that root server. In > other cases, each individual machine that makes up the root server > fetches the root zone from the "real" distribution master directly. > > I should probably note that any resolver operator can (assuming their > resolver is capable of it which most are) mirror the root zone into > their resolver, but this doesn't make that resolver a root server > since it doesn't have one of the 13 IP(v4) addresses. > >> 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. > > As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. > >> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual >> neutral/ technical information. > > Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to > communicate. > > As you have assumed conspiracy, I suspect trying to explain further is > pointless since presumably I and anyone else who tries to disabuse you > of your beliefs would obviously be part of the conspiracy. I will, > however, continue trying since http://www.xkcd.com/386/. > >> We read in the discussions that the limit of 13 no longer is meaningful. > > 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. > >> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >> world happy. > > Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own > root server would make the people of the world happy. > >> 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. > > 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". > > 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? > >> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of >> these root servers. Is it really true? > > Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is > seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". > >> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. > > Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is > distributed. > >> 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? > > 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. > > 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. > >> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 >> root server operators, > > Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). > >> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >> physical location points. > > In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 > organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. > >> 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. > > 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 > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). > >> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >> present debate. Any answers? > > 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. > >> 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. > > 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. > > Merging a subsequent note: > > On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >> operator to his own anycast server. > > 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. > >> This is a pretty centralised control, 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. > > 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? > > 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. > >> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? > > Yes. Really. > > Regards, > -drc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Aug 6 08:39:55 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 12:39:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DD4EE@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Fair questions, Parminder. .Com and Verisign are “special” in that .com still operates under an ancient (199x) “Cooperative Agreement” that started with the National Science Foundation and then moved to the Commerce Department in 1997. For a list of amendments to that contract (it is looooong), see this: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/domainname/nsi.htm In that technical-legal minutiae you will find whatever “review” capabilities exist. Basically the battle over the establishment of ICANN was not really complete until Verisign, which has de facto operational control of the root zone and, with its control of .com, accounted for over half of the domain name market back then, accepted ICANN and agreed to play ball with it. Litigation between Versign and ICANN over the terms of the .com agreement was settled in 2005, I think (people closer to this issue such as Bret Fausett will correct me if I am off) and because of the competition policy/monopoly implications of the settlement, and the existence of the cooperative agreement, the USG had the authority to approve it. This 2006 press release from the US DoC explains in a nutshell what happened with that initial settlement and USG review: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/press/2006/icanncom_113006.htm Other than things pertaining to the specific terms of the IANA contract, I cannot think of any other areas where ICANN decisions would be subject to USG review. As an advocate of government regulation of big business, however, I am sure you are pleased to learn that the US government is looking out for you when it comes to Verisign. ;-) From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 1:39 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal One thing in the news item on the renewal of .com agreement interested me a lot. "The deal is currently under review by the US Department of Commerce and Bidzos said he expects it to be approved before November 30, when the current contract expires." I did not know that US government exercised review over ICANN's routine contract renewals. So much for the claims that US hardly exercises any 'real' or 'in effect' oversight role over ICANN. Can anyone provide us a list of what all decisions of ICANN are subject to US gov's review and confirmation, and in what manner. This will help one form a good view of what really is the oversight role with US at present, something which has always been so much in the eye of the storm. I direct this question especially at those who seem so awfully disappointed that despite the best efforts of ICANN/ technical community, most outsiders, especially those with pathological political sensitivities, simply are not able to understand much :). Pl note that the above is a simple and direct question, and should be able to have a clear and direct response. I am sure ICANN insiders would know the answer. parminder On Saturday 04 August 2012 12:37 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: This can be understood in terms of path dependency as well as Public Choice theory... at some level of abstraction. On 2012/08/03 02:48 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: The financial aspect and opportunities will always be there because at the end of the day, we see a lot of stuff that inclines towards benefiting the domain industry. Best Fouad On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: http://domainincite.com/9845-icann-to-get-8-million-more-from-new-com-deal I wonder if this was the reason why ICANN renewed the .com agreement in favor of VeriSign Inc., causing lots of controversy and question marks within the ICANN community. Fahd _______________________________________________ list mailing list list at igfarab.org http://mail.igfarab.org/mailman/listinfo/list -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Aug 6 10:39:31 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:39:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] US will push for open markets, free expression at ITU meeting | ITworld In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:10 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > ICANN is limited in the scope, see below. ICANN does not govern the Internet. It is not the place to work out Internet governance policies as it only looks after a few of the policy areas identified in the WGIG 2005 Report [http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf see pages 5-8] It says so too within the ICANN Articles of Incorporation, see excerpts below: > In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 5 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by > (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; > > (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space; > > (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system; > > (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and > > (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv). > > ... Salanieta - You are correct; ICANN was envisioned to perform the very clearly defined task of coordination of technical parameters needed to keep the Internet running, including overseeing the development of related policies for the coordination of these parameters. The recording of this intent can also be found in the formative Green and White papers which were developed to describe the need and structure for the new organization. I think it is true to say that ICANN is a part of the governance system of the Internet, but that does not equate with it being "_the_ place to work out to work out Internet governance policies" (emphasis added), implying the sole place to do so, since there could easily be needed Internet governance policies which have nothing to do with the coordination of the technical parameters of the Internet. Furthermore, coordination of technical parameters (and the policies needed for same) does not necessarily imply validity to define global consensus on any public policy issue that happens to impact the Internet. For example, freedom of expression is a concept far greater than the Internet, so it would not be reasonable for the global reference consensus statement on "Freedom of expression as a basic human right" to be worked out solely by ICANN. Last month, I noted the challenge we face with respect to the scope of "Internet Governance" policies; it is very easily to define that scope to be far greater than the scope of the present institutions working in the Internet ecosystem (see attached email). FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Depend on my present location, email responses may be 13.8 late minutes as a result of propagation delay. Begin forwarded message: > From: John Curran > Subject: Re: [governance] Oversight > Date: July 1, 2012 12:20:14 PM EDT > To: parminder > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, John Curran > ... > Let's recall one key statement from ICANN's core values: > > "11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations." > > Taking such recommendations into account _requires_ that there > is either a single consensus input received or indeed a high degree > of commonality among all of the recommendations received. I do > believe that ICANN must respect the guidance in these cases, but > from what I can determine it is not in ICANN's mission to bring about > consensus in social and public policy matters where none exists today. > (and If ICANN had such amazing abilities, then we should have it work > on world hunger and conflict before worrying about Internet matters...) > ... > If the public policy considerations that you reference are areas where we > have commonly accepted and documented societal norms, then those > documents should be formally submitted into the policy development > processes and ICANN should be held accountable, per its core values, > for taking them into consideration in setting policies for technical identifier > coordination and management for the Internet. > > If the public policy considerations that you reference are areas where we > lack commonly accepted and documented societal norms, I would think > that bringing governments, civil society, and businesses together on these > matters first would be a high priority, and a task much larger in scope that > ICANN's mission. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Aug 6 11:02:58 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 11:02:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU signs deal to build 180 base stations in Africa to expand broadband access Message-ID: http://www.ghanabusinessnews.com/itu-signs-deal-to-build-180-base-stations-in-africa-to-expand-broadband-access/ Interesting development. I wonder if they are becoming a provider themselves, or subsidising telcos in the region...surely the latter!!?? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Mon Aug 6 11:37:45 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 15:37:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501F8200.6050400@gmail.com> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org>,<501F8200.6050400@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AD8DA@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Riaz, thanks for spelling out clearly some of the difficulties in the present discussion. Here's a take that might interest you: A number of us fromm developing countries and imbued with different levels of discomfort with "northern" domination of world economy and politics decided many years ago to separate the system in layers, as it is architected, and act within it in differentiated ways. I'll spare you a lot of details to summarize saying that we found far more opportunity for our developing-country views to be taken into account, and far more to contribute to our countries and societies, by acting directly in the construction and evolution of the global Internet Governance mechanisms than in waiting for our governments to do so for us - with the risk, proven true, that they would do it in an ill-informed and misguided way. Doing so does not ignore questions of legitimacy, asymmetry of power, definitions of democracy, etc. It builds on it instead of waiting for Mommy or Daddy Government and renounces the view of the UN as a world government which is implicit in some of your views. We do not take an anti-UN stance BTW, nor even an anti-ITU as it would seem. Engineers, mathematicians and computer scientists from India, Pakistan, and many other countries arrive with views like yours to try to change the architecture at the technical level as well and work in the IETF. Experimentation, to which you dedicate a paragraph, takes place constantly. And in the spirit of good science, a number of experiments which have been undertaken and whose results are known, are not repeated endlessly, esp. not at the core of a working infrastructure whose architecture and evolability have proven themselves. >From that group's point of view, your position is seen as reactionary... it is seen as resisting change, ongoing and provable change, a veritable revolution in human affairs... can you picture that?? If you can, we are beginning to be able to engage in a more fruitful conversation. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] Enviado el: lunes, 06 de agosto de 2012 03:36 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) David Thanks for the clarification. Parminder, Time to go to Karl's cavebear and dig out some of the issues he raised, like single point of failure, the misconception that the internet is merely a collection of nets etc... such a long time ago and such a boring escapade... and I share some sentiments that we are right back in 2003... But perhaps it is just as well I am an amateur (and an idiotic marginal one at that) that I can perhaps converse directly with Parminder's views as if others were not around - which is how this issue is dealt with by many others on this list - as if legitimacy was not an issue... so instead of talking at cross purposes let me converse with like-minded people like Parminder so they and others can see where we are coming from (although I am not speaking for Parminder, and it may sound like it, you specify where you are ad idem if necessary... this a horrible sarcastic caricature ... ) for others edification just to show them that there is an alternate conception of things out there (not better, not worse, just different... and perhaps if disinterested judgement is applied, PERHAPS a more reasonable in approach)... So Parminder, what I understand is that the system is designed in a particular way, has incorporated a number of changes, and is rather flexible - given certain constraints. Apparently the sense is that it should be alright now, at the technical level, to solve the legitimacy issues. There remains the socio-political issue of "control" (or to give Curran credence - participation) raised inaccurately and "deeply wrong" (which is a vice for Southerners but Northerners who talk about a single root are free from such aspersions - go figure) technically, but otherwise (socio-politically) remains in tact because neither GAC nor IGF deals with the issue to their satisfaction. Now conspiracy theories abound (unless of course one listened to commie Cuba or how Iraq was treated before the illegal invasion of Al Qaeeda infested Iraq -- if I recall correctly on both counts as I am not trawling through the web to find those references as it is tangential to my main point), but if there is no real problem with the architecture as it is, then why can governance structures not be changed in a way that maintains technical fidelity? See it is nice when we too ask questions (and to anticipate the droll responses - it is absolutely OK to have NO idea about the future shape, but to know that current arrangements are not ok, and others are invited to be pragmatic... see comments on evolution below). On the technical level, I think "autonomous internet" and "single root", these can be worked out and they are not so much of a problem as I read this stuff - techies are cool and love engineering around problems - ... and I am happy to be wrong and guided... On the socio-political level the argument made by those who "support" (said guardedly, with all necessary caveats) ICANN ask what do the likes of you/us want? I think this has been clear - no technical administration without representation - to paraphrase a famous tea party (although I do not want to confuse that one with modern adherents, the likes of whom seem to be on this list in large order - but that may just be my own jaundiced eye, but it is a pre-existing condition so well... ). So the more these fellows argue that "everything is alright" the more I get the sense that these arguments work adequately well for the other side (if the technical is so flexible, then it can work in a myriad of governance arrangement just so long as integrity (system and people) and testing is safeguarded - except for the actual shape of things to come. From a truly evolutionary perspective this is not a problem. I suspect, however, that this argument is used to resist change so that the destination (proposed shape of arrangements) can be criticised as too sunny or cold as a substitute for setting upon the path of accepting a directionality to change (and here they are right we ARE STILL in 2003). The evolutionary spirit is that of variety creation (experimentation) leading to (natural iow political here) selection of what works - and this is the test of the pudding in the evolutionary system. Now if ICANN is more open to change than some civil society people here then it is unavoidable that one reasonably can conclude they fall in as "true believers" or astroturfers without becoming a conspiracy theorist. Now it is ridiculous to assert (unless one is of John Bolton predisposition, or the Heritage Foundation - decidedly anti-UN) that one can handle matters of war and peace in the imperfect UN (or a really supercharged GAC, if one is open to change and take the Chinese proposal to heart as righteous and pious believers in the single root should - although I am not a confessor) but can't deal with this... perhaps it is time to help them decolonise the evolutionary imagination... You see because for single rooters, whose belief - and it is a belief - the Chinese proposal should be scary. Instead of beating the same drum they have been for ages - they do need to be keenly aware of how they indict themselves in the socio-political realm (if one is disinterested). Talking as if they were not listening (to be clear because this is laden with assumptions that others could dispute, but I do not expect much from you), they should be scrambling for a solution because China may not be as powerful as the US but it has been patient and has a strong vested interest in maintaining control as it understands its political equations (if they misunderestimate this then well there is no helping them). When they don't scramble then it puts paid to all the (technical) bunkum that we had to deal with SINCE 2003 - statements and actions must match, and they were so dedicated to this view point. The indictment is the lack of depth or absence of discussion from a believers pov on this list (for "believers" it indicates that 'the way they believe what they believe' is as much of a problem as 'what is believed' - but perhaps I am too esoteric here). This is not so much of a problem for those who genuinely "buy" the ICANN-ish type line (recognising that they are more flexible than some in civil society) as they can self correct, but more of one for those "astro-turfers" (so to speak, based on genuince concerns about the Chinese proposal for single root rather than platitudes) - because the question is that when the contradictions become so glaringly obvious the "handlers" need to ask is "where can one find good help these days?" leading to the inevitable, "how dispensable are you?" For me 'dime a dozen' springs to mind, although there are some long haulers also - but for them the experience has brought less, rather than more, sophistication into civil society engagements imho. You see, because I am chastised for name-calling (which in the IT community I thought was par for the course, eg generally previous discussions on IETF modalities, and particularly on this list) when I was genuinely under the impression that this is the acceptable tenor of robust engagement (perhaps I am not that good at induction)... I hope to see some sincerity in those wishing to set the tone on this list to be even handed. Now I am under no impression that this will be done, but one must be optimistic. And because I come from a Third World Nationalist perspective (which is one of many TW perspectives), let me put it like this, the issue of 'no technical administration with representation' is something that may seem irrational for those with the civilising mission. But self-determination and other issues (like sitting in the back of the bus) became mainstream nevertheless. That said, Third World countries have lots of problems, and corruption is certainly one of them - and especially as raised on this list needs to dealt with head on (I hope that this can be taken up and that the allegation is not left hanging as it so frequently is in our countries). But some perspective is in order, compared with Mortgage Backed Securities, Libor or the sum of issues that make up the Great Recession (we can't call it a depression, because well...) makes TWers look like petty thieves (and the rich countries always score highly on Transparency International's list - just look at Iceland's score in 2006!)... ...but more germane to the issues here is the serious violations that have occurred in the US and the rich countries (including expropriation of domain names by trade mark holders in the name of laws that were made up as things went along, violations of privacy, PATRIOTIC legislation. etc). See with this "wild west"/can do/"we the best" kind of attitude it makes it hard to have a decent conversation... (and I drip with sarcasm because I just do not like the pot calling the kettle black - I am odd like that I know, just can shake it though, but will try) ... it may come as a surprise to some, but what passes for progressive in some quarters would not pass muster elsewhere... I recall raising issues of conflict of interest once at a consultation, and was lambasted. This is NORMAL in these fora - if upstarts even question ICANN they must get their cumuppence. And boy do we get it and take it. But I why should I let a self-righteous tone kick me down? That we will be kicked down is a CERTAINTY, and we engage that knowing that while maintain faith in reason and the reality of choice - such hopeless romantics (sigh :) So let me be absolutely clear, better 'a might is right' than supposed ideological neutrality posing as universal. I can respect Avri when she expresses a preference for US over others (and it is understandable - at least the issue is contestable, if expensive, and there are some checks and balances. This candour of techies is appreciated - then we can have a real conversation and accept differences and work out stuff... taking into account relative power differences, values of equality which are put in practice (not some sublime impractical liberal assumption of formal equality) etc... But candour should not be confused with bullying and domination. Here at least people express themselves and are clear, instead of the constraining political correctness that bedogs other lists... And I am sorry if I have to dispel the petty illusions that some on this list seem to want to maintain (it is VERY important for them apparently). From a marginal,amateurish perspective there is not an iota of even handedness in many of the discussions, and the single rooters and obsequious ICANNers in civil society stand on notions that are threadbare (iow its time to up the game). If those who now want to make points about namecalling and do not want to be coarse, then they should step in with an even hand, and I will be first to admit that I am a muppet... but like peanut butter, it needs to be spread fairly... Riaz On 2012/08/05 07:10 PM, David Conrad wrote: Parminder, On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder > wrote: 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 . No. There is a "distribution master". This is a machine that allows for zone transfer of the root zone data maintained by the "root management partners" (ICANN, Verisign, U.S. Dept. of Commerce NTIA) by anyone that holds the private root zone TSIG key (password). It is not publicly accessible and does not (I believe) respond to any DNS query other that "AXFR" (zone transfer), "IXFR" (incremental zone transfer), and "SOA" (start of authority, used to figure out if a server needs to do a zone transfer). As such, it is not a "root server". There are "root servers". These are devices that are numbered with one of 13 IP(v4) addresses listed in http://www.internic.net/domain/named.root to which the root zone is transferred and which respond to all DNS queries with referrals to top-level domains (exceptions being for queries for data in the root-servers.net and arpa zones which are co-resident with the root zone on 12 of the root servers). That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. The devices that make up the root servers vary from single machines in one geographical location (this describes "B" and "D") to clusters of machines either localized or spread out geographically using "anycast" (this describes all the other root servers). Within the latter, there are different distribution models primarily to limit the load on the "distribution master". In many cases (particularly for the root servers that have many machines), there is an "internal distribution master" that fetches the zone from the "real" distribution master and makes it available to all the other machines for that root server. In other cases, each individual machine that makes up the root server fetches the root zone from the "real" distribution master directly. I should probably note that any resolver operator can (assuming their resolver is capable of it which most are) mirror the root zone into their resolver, but this doesn't make that resolver a root server since it doesn't have one of the 13 IP(v4) addresses. 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. As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual neutral/ technical information. Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to communicate. As you have assumed conspiracy, I suspect trying to explain further is pointless since presumably I and anyone else who tries to disabuse you of your beliefs would obviously be part of the conspiracy. I will, however, continue trying since http://www.xkcd.com/386/. We read in the discussions that the limit of 13 no longer is meaningful. 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. So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the world happy. Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own root server would make the people of the world happy. 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. 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". 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? I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of these root servers. Is it really true? Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to what goes in and from the authoritative root server. Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is distributed. 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? 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. 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. I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 root server operators, Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not physical location points. In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. 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. 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 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the present debate. Any answers? 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. 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. 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. Merging a subsequent note: On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast operator to his own anycast server. 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. This is a pretty centralised control, 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. 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? 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. Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? Yes. Really. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Mon Aug 6 12:09:55 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:09:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501F8200.6050400@gmail.com> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <501F8200.6050400@gmail.com> Message-ID: <42E95478-76E0-4075-AD6B-E5298183EC7F@virtualized.org> Riaz, On Aug 6, 2012, at 1:36 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > David Thanks for the clarification. I hope it was helpful. > Parminder, ... Not to intrude on your discussion with Parminder, but could you clarify: > no technical administration without representation In the context of ICANN, the following technical resources are coordinated: - Protocol parameters (protocol identifiers, service identifiers, etc.) - IP numbers (IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses, Autonomous System numbers) - Domain names (top-level domains, root management) Out of honest curiosity, in your view, which of these are administered without representation? (I have my own list but am interested in yours) Also, just for clarification: > You see because for single rooters, whose belief - and it is a belief - the Chinese proposal should be scary. What do you think the right answer should be when an application (like a web browser) looks up "www.gmail.com"? In my view, the right answer would be the IP addresses Google has assigned to the web servers for "www.gmail.com". In the "Chinese" proposal (by which I presume you mean http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns-01), the answer would depend on whether "www.gmail.com" resolves in the "local" root. If it doesn't, a box on the edge of the national network would append a suffix (e.g., "www.gmail.com.A") and submit that query to the "global" root for resolution. The proposal implies that there could be any number of suffixes, presumably corresponding to countries (perhaps they could use ISO-3166 strings?), but does not specify how the box on the edge of the national network is supposed to figure out which suffix to use. One could imagine an implementation that orders suffixes based on politics, e.g., country "A" is more friendly to us than country "B", so we'll query their names first, etc. While I can see the attraction of such an approach for folks who want to exert control of what is accessible (by domain name) to the people within the tightly controlled national network or who wish to penalize sites in other countries they don't like, it raises a myriad of technical implementation issues (resiliency, latency, caching, etc). Oh, and I think there might be a few issues related to freedom of expression, but I acknowledge that I might have some non-technical biases in that area. As such, the "Chinese" proposal isn't really scary, rather it yet another reiteration of the "same old stuff" (I think I first heard a proposal similar to this back in the late 80s) and one that isn't particularly well specified or actually even implementable. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Mon Aug 6 14:22:19 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 21:22:19 +0300 Subject: [governance] ITU signs deal to build 180 base stations in Africa to expand broadband access In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I wonder if this is another ITU approach to have a piece of the big telco pie now that the Internet control is most probably far from reach. Fahd On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:02 PM, McTim wrote: > > http://www.ghanabusinessnews.com/itu-signs-deal-to-build-180-base-stations-in-africa-to-expand-broadband-access/ > > Interesting development. I wonder if they are becoming a provider > themselves, or subsidising telcos in the region...surely the > latter!!?? > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Mon Aug 6 15:09:25 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 19:09:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] ITU signs deal to build 180 base stations in Africa to expand broadband access In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483ADDAB@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Fahd, I've been trying to find out what this program means as to ITU involvement. There may be some precedent in the collaboration with Cisco that the ITU has held for a number of years. Under shared ITU-Cisco branding, they have established a number of Cisco Networking Academies which are called Internet Training Centers (yes, there may be one close to you.) These centers are Cisco schools, offering brand-oriented training and access to certification. The money comes form everywhere but the ITU as far as I know - from Cisco and from the country where they are established. The ITU's coordinating role may be signficant in some countries, unnecessary in others. >From my experience: the unit I directed as academic CIO of the National University of Mexico (which has 324,000 students) entered a partnership with Cisco for an Academy, and we never actually got to do much because the training had to be totally Cisco-oriented. The deal eventually died because our institution cannot be held to such commercial constraints. (Do take note that this was not an ITU-related deal, but we do know that the ITC's are CNA's in program and equipment.) Can the present deal with Nexpedience be similar? or is the million dollars mentioned in the news provided by the donors of the ITU? I have not been able to find any details about the deal in the ITU's website, nor in Nexpedience's. (Nexpedience is basically a manufacturer of radios, i.e. base stations, formerly a divisio of Nokia, so a lot of information about the deal is still necessary - like, who will build towers, install, operate, etc.) Glad to be corrected by someone better informed. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Fahd A. Batayneh [fahd.batayneh at gmail.com] Enviado el: lunes, 06 de agosto de 2012 13:22 Hasta: IG Caucus Asunto: Re: [governance] ITU signs deal to build 180 base stations in Africa to expand broadband access I wonder if this is another ITU approach to have a piece of the big telco pie now that the Internet control is most probably far from reach. Fahd On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:02 PM, McTim > wrote: http://www.ghanabusinessnews.com/itu-signs-deal-to-build-180-base-stations-in-africa-to-expand-broadband-access/ Interesting development. I wonder if they are becoming a provider themselves, or subsidising telcos in the region...surely the latter!!?? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Mon Aug 6 15:27:27 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:27:27 +0300 Subject: [governance] ITU signs deal to build 180 base stations in Africa to expand broadband access In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483ADDAB@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483ADDAB@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Thank you for the valuable insight Alejandro. >From my exposure to ITU activities, I can conclude that the ITU tend to tap countries that are low on ICT resources, and this is how they win votes when requested by their 194 members states, and this is - for example - what is making many of us worried about the outcomes of the WCIT meeting in Dubai year end. While I have no negative stance against the ITU or any of its staff members, I would like to see a cleaner approach towards ICT development in developing and least-developed countries when they tend to help rather than using the "Help me to help you" approach currently used. Fahd On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan at unam.mx> wrote: > Fahd, > > I've been trying to find out what this program means as to ITU > involvement. > > There may be some precedent in the collaboration with Cisco that the ITU > has held for a number of years. Under shared ITU-Cisco branding, they have > established a number of Cisco Networking Academies which are called > Internet Training Centers (yes, there may be one close to you.) > > These centers are Cisco schools, offering brand-oriented training and > access to certification. The money comes form everywhere but the ITU as far > as I know - from Cisco and from the country where they are established. The > ITU's coordinating role may be signficant in some countries, unnecessary in > others. > > From my experience: the unit I directed as academic CIO of the National > University of Mexico (which has 324,000 students) entered a partnership > with Cisco for an Academy, and we never actually got to do much because the > training had to be totally Cisco-oriented. The deal eventually died because > our institution cannot be held to such commercial constraints. (Do take > note that this was not an ITU-related deal, but we do know that the ITC's > are CNA's in program and equipment.) > > Can the present deal with Nexpedience be similar? or is the million > dollars mentioned in the news provided by the donors of the ITU? I have not > been able to find any details about the deal in the ITU's website, nor in > Nexpedience's. (Nexpedience is basically a manufacturer of radios, i.e. > base stations, formerly a divisio of Nokia, so a lot of information about > the deal is still necessary - like, who will build towers, install, > operate, etc.) > > Glad to be corrected by someone better informed. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > ------------------------------ > *Desde:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Fahd A. Batayneh [ > fahd.batayneh at gmail.com] > *Enviado el:* lunes, 06 de agosto de 2012 13:22 > *Hasta:* IG Caucus > *Asunto:* Re: [governance] ITU signs deal to build 180 base stations in > Africa to expand broadband access > > I wonder if this is another ITU approach to have a piece of the big > telco pie now that the Internet control is most probably far from reach. > > Fahd > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:02 PM, McTim wrote: > >> >> http://www.ghanabusinessnews.com/itu-signs-deal-to-build-180-base-stations-in-africa-to-expand-broadband-access/ >> >> Interesting development. I wonder if they are becoming a provider >> themselves, or subsidising telcos in the region...surely the >> latter!!?? >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Aug 6 16:08:22 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:08:22 +1200 Subject: [governance] ITU signs deal to build 180 base stations in Africa to expand broadband access In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483ADDAB@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: > > > > From my exposure to ITU activities, I can conclude that the ITU tend to > tap countries that are low on ICT resources, > If one looks at the statistics on penetration rates via http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/index.html you will see that for most of the developing countries have extremely low penetration rates. In a separate thread on Ethiopia, I had attempted to show some of the variables that exist that one could call significant deterrents to rolling out infrastructure. You see the reality is that Telcos will only pump money into CAPEX projects if they know they will get a Return on Investment (RoI). A consistent trend for most Telcos involved in Broadband infrastructure is that they are realising that it takes at least 15 years to recover that RoI. Also consider the IDI ranking which measures a host of things including accessibility, affordability etc, and you will find (not suprisingly) alot of developing countries at the bottom of the rung. Whilst there are numerous studies that show the linkages between broadband deployment/investment with economic growth, there are other factors that put a dampener on basic things like "access". I can only assume that Africa has numerous forums where access challenges would be discussed. I think that sometimes people forget that part of living in an "ecosystem" (apologies to those who despise the term) is that everything has its place. Just as when a species or genus becomes extinct it eventually affects the environment so too in the internet ecosystem. The ITU only steps in when countries through their governments make a request for assistance. As an advocate for development, I think that this should be applauded. One of the Internet Governance policy areas identified in the WGIG 2005 includes high interconnection costs. At some point it would be interesting to see a review of the WGIG Report and its findings. -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Mon Aug 6 16:50:17 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 23:50:17 +0300 Subject: [governance] ITU signs deal to build 180 base stations in Africa to expand broadband access In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483ADDAB@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Salanieta, while I would never disagree on your insight, and while I agree that it is a win-win case for both the ITU and developing/least-developed countries, I think the ITU should start approaching these countries differently. While I also agree that the ITU provides training and consultancy services based on requests from members, who does that? *Governments*. When governments start to rely heavily on bodies such as the ITU (but not limited to), they neglect the learning aspects and just follow blindly. This is what makes them followers rather than trying to be innovators and leaders. Fahd On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 11:08 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> From my exposure to ITU activities, I can conclude that the ITU tend to >> tap countries that are low on ICT resources, >> > > If one looks at the statistics on penetration rates via > http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/index.html you will see that for > most of the developing countries have extremely low penetration rates. In a > separate thread on Ethiopia, I had attempted to show some of the variables > that exist that one could call significant deterrents to rolling out > infrastructure. You see the reality is that Telcos will only pump money > into CAPEX projects if they know they will get a Return on Investment > (RoI). A consistent trend for most Telcos involved in Broadband > infrastructure is that they are realising that it takes at least 15 years > to recover that RoI. > > Also consider the IDI ranking which measures a host of things including > accessibility, affordability etc, and you will find (not suprisingly) alot > of developing countries at the bottom of the rung. Whilst there are > numerous studies that show the linkages between broadband > deployment/investment with economic growth, there are other factors that > put a dampener on basic things like "access". I can only assume that Africa > has numerous forums where access challenges would be discussed. I think > that sometimes people forget that part of living in an "ecosystem" > (apologies to those who despise the term) is that everything has its place. > Just as when a species or genus becomes extinct it eventually affects the > environment so too in the internet ecosystem. > > The ITU only steps in when countries through their governments make a > request for assistance. As an advocate for development, I think that this > should be applauded. One of the Internet Governance policy areas identified > in the WGIG 2005 includes high interconnection costs. At some point it > would be interesting to see a review of the WGIG Report and its findings. > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Aug 6 23:24:37 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 00:24:37 -0300 Subject: [governance] Call for support - Brazilian civil rights framework in Congress Message-ID: On behalf of Joana Varon, from CTS-FGV Dear Colleagues, Please find attached a letter of support for the Civil Rights Framework for Internet in Brazil, drafted in partnership with the following Brazilian civil society organizations: Institute of Consumers Defense - IDEC; Intervozes and the Center for Technology and Society - CTS/FGV, but with growing support from a list of others. *Next Wednesday, August 8th, the bill shall be voted at a Special Committee of National **Congress*. It would be the first step in the creation of a legal text that goes in the opposite direction to the trend of criminalization and imposing intermediary liability on the web. As you might already know, we had expected it to be voted a month ago, but it did not happen due to lack of quorum. And nowadays, though it is the product of a highly democratic process, approval of the text is not guaranteed. We believe international support can help us put pressure on Congress for approval. So, if you agree, I would kindly ask your institution to sign this letter. Sorry for not having being able to propose it as a document to be edited in partnership, but we are in a rush, as the idea is to have a version with institutional signatures of international civil society organizations by tomorrow to deliver it to the Special Commission on *Wednesday*. Signatures can be sent directly to my email (*joana at varonferraz.com*), preferably indicating the link to the website of the supporting institution. ps. sorry for any eventual cross-posting Kind regards, Joana -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/ www.freenetfilm.org @joana_varon -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SupportMarcoCivil_06ago12.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 44683 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Aug 7 01:17:45 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 10:47:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> David, On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Parminder, > > On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder > wrote: >> 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 . > > No. > > There is a "distribution master". 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; "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. Each of these is an actual root server." 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). "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without mechanisms of control and intervention." Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt it obvious! 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 :) > (snip) > > That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true > root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. 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 "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) 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. 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! 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'. > (snip) >> 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. > > As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. 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. > >> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual >> neutral/ technical information. > > Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to > communicate. :). 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! > > (snip) > > 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. 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. > >> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >> world happy. > > Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own > root server would make the people of the world happy. 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. regards parminder > >> 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. > > 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". > > 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? > >> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of >> these root servers. Is it really true? > > Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is > seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". > >> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. > > Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is > distributed. > >> 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? > > 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. > > 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. > >> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 >> root server operators, > > Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). > >> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >> physical location points. > > In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 > organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. > >> 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. > > 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 > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). > >> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >> present debate. Any answers? > > 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. > >> 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. > > 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. > > Merging a subsequent note: > > On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >> operator to his own anycast server. > > 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. > >> This is a pretty centralised control, 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. > > 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? > > 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. > >> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? > > Yes. Really. > > Regards, > -drc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Tue Aug 7 01:51:07 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 05:51:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org>,<5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AEAF1@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Parminder, let's assume you may be right. Then, do as engineers do: design and test. 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 and start participating in the IETF with a proposal. Better if it takes into account previous explorations of the subject. All techno-political framing clouds will dispel. Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Enviado el: martes, 07 de agosto de 2012 00:17 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Conrad Asunto: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) David, On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: Parminder, On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder > wrote: 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 . No. There is a "distribution master". 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; "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. Each of these is an actual root server." 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). "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without mechanisms of control and intervention." Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt it obvious! 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 :) (snip) That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. 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 "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) 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. 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! 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'. (snip) 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. As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. 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. This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual neutral/ technical information. Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to communicate. :). 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! (snip) 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. 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. So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the world happy. Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own root server would make the people of the world happy. 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. regards parminder 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. 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". 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? I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of these root servers. Is it really true? Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to what goes in and from the authoritative root server. Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is distributed. 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? 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. 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. I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 root server operators, Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not physical location points. In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. 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. 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 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the present debate. Any answers? 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. 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. 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. Merging a subsequent note: On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast operator to his own anycast server. 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. This is a pretty centralised control, 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. 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? 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. Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? Yes. Really. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Aug 7 02:23:04 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 11:53:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <5020B448.9060407@itforchange.net> David, On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Snip) > >> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >> world happy. > > Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own > root server would make the people of the world happy. A good issue, and in the present circumstances, the right issue, to explore. I understand that you and the technical community agree that, in the first instance, the root servers were distributed among different agencies primarily to avoid capture. Right! To make sure we agree on this, I quote you from your email below "The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture"." (David) And I quote an ISOC document, as something that could represent the viewpoint of technical community in general. "......the root name servers that publish this zone file are organised in a distributed and diverse fashion. No single entity has authority or control over the operation of these servers. This diversity and the distributed authority has been a key element of the reliability of the root name service. Therefore this diversity should be maintained in the face of increasing pressure for more hierarchical "Internet Governance". http://www.isoc.org/briefings/019/ Again, what is being suggested is that distribution of 'power' over different entities running root servers helps avoid 'capture'. Very well! Now we should see that this is clearly political territory, talk of capture and distribution of power. Somebody rightly decided that if root server operations are distributed among different agencies and not subject to any 'single entity having authority or control over the operation of these servers' it will be good for the Internet, users etc. I understand that we agree up to this point. Now, it is obvious that the decision to do the above was a political decision, including the choice of which all agencies should operation of root servers be distributed over. It was basically a US decision - take or give something from a compact of US gov - other US entities. Now a few years down the line, the Internet globally being what it is, some people think that this political decision is not quite adequate to the current circumstances, and want a 'political' review of it. They are not satisfied that the 'capture' possibility has been adequately accounted for. (Let us not lose sight of the fact that the idea and possiblity of 'capture' is not an invention of their conspiratorial minds. As above it is a prior issue central to current design of root server ownership.) The logic of 'no single entity having the authority or control over operation of root server' does not stand close geo-political scrutiny, esp in today's world. 9 of the 12 root server operators are in the US and directly and full subject to US executive's emergency authority (believe me, they very surely are, and if we want to argue this point, lets argue it separately, so that we dont dilute the chain of logic here). Three root servers are outside in US friendly OECD countries, that routinely cooperate with the US closely in all kinds of strategic, including military and criminal, matters. Hounding of CEO of megauploads and wikileaks come easily to mind as instances of close cooperation in cross border Internet manners of the kind that are not so palatable to the rest of the world. Through OECD and other plurilateral pacts these countires are configuring an ever closer relationship vis a vis the global Internet. On global military and security matters, and the term 'capture' relates to exceptional but plausible global scenarios, these countries always coordinate closely, and largely follow US diktats, esp on real 'global' emergencies. Now, would you fault someone if he were to reason that the present strategy against 'capture' vis a vis the operation or the root/ DNS system of the Internet, while laudable in its initial intentions, is not quite adequate, and is not in keeping with times. A simple and direct political formulation. What do you say to it? This is crucial point for us to cross, and if need be, argue and come to some common conclusion on. This requires clear political views, not technical, and I think we will agree to this fact. One can suggest that given the current situation of the Internet, the very same laudable intention of avoiding capture that informed the present root server system, when it was instituted, requires us to change the system. Is it really all that illegitimate a political demand. What is your response to this question? No, this is not an aside. This is the only question that the Indian and African minister really brought to the table, something which triggered and underlies the present discussion. One side cant conveniently turn the discussion around to what it wants to discuss, and calling the 'allocation of root servers' issue as a red herring as you do in your email. Such allocation and possible reallocation is 'the' issue we want to discuss. Of course there are other issues that you may want to bring to the table, and sure enough, we should discuss them too. But we cant just unilaterally pooh-pooh issues that are considered very important by others. especially when, as shown above, it take the very logic of 'capture' that you propose to its logical political consideration. This brings us to the key, in fact, the original question, rescued from under the labyrinth of all kinds of obfuscations; why cant we either increase the number of root servers (operators) and allocate new ones to new agencies in a manner that is globally better distributed and more just or, if that is not possible, reallocate the existing root servers from too many agencies in a single country to those in others, esp in the South. This will require an examination of the following questions (1) whether the number 13 can be breached, and more root server operators created, and/or (2) the existing root server operations can be reallocated. I believe both options are possible (but surely, at least one is possible which serves as well), but we can discuss the technical and political issues involved. This is the political demand from the South which cannot just be pooh poohed by describing its ministers as ill-informed or stupid. We seek full engagement of the civil society and other actors with this political demand. parminder > >> 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. > > 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". > > 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? > >> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of >> these root servers. Is it really true? > > Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is > seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". > >> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. > > Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is > distributed. > >> 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? > > 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. > > 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. > >> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 >> root server operators, > > Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). > >> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >> physical location points. > > In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 > organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. > >> 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. > > 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 > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). > >> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >> present debate. Any answers? > > 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. > >> 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. > > 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. > > Merging a subsequent note: > > On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >> operator to his own anycast server. > > 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. > >> This is a pretty centralised control, 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. > > 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? > > 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. > >> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? > > Yes. Really. > > Regards, > -drc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Aug 7 02:54:31 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 12:24:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AEAF1@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org>,<5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AEAF1@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <5020BBA7.7070303@itforchange.net> Alejandro, First of all, many thanks for your unusually even tempered response to my email :) . On Tuesday 07 August 2012 11:21 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Parminder, > > let's assume you may be right. Then, do as engineers do: design and test. 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! > > 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 I know you would consider this even more unbelievable, but there simply isnt any engineer here at IT for Change :( > and start participating in the IETF with a proposal. Better if it > takes into account previous explorations of the subject. 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. What do you say to this proposal. parminder > > All techno-political framing clouds will dispel. > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Desde:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de parminder > [parminder at itforchange.net] > *Enviado el:* martes, 07 de agosto de 2012 00:17 > *Hasta:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Conrad > *Asunto:* Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root > server misunderstanding (still...) > > David, > > On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: >> Parminder, >> >> On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder > > wrote: >>> 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 . >> >> No. >> >> There is a "distribution master". > > 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; > > "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server > instances. Each of these is an actual root server." > > 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). > > > "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without > mechanisms of control and intervention." > > Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress > (or forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. > Isnt it obvious! > > 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 :) > >> (snip) >> >> That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true >> root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. > 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 > > "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) > > 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. > > 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! > > 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'. > >> (snip) >>> 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. >> >> As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. > > 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. > >> >>> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual >>> neutral/ technical information. >> >> Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to >> communicate. > > :). 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! >> >> (snip) >> >> 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. > 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. > >> >>> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >>> world happy. >> >> Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own >> root server would make the people of the world happy. > 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. > > regards > parminder > >> >>> 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. >> >> 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". >> >> 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? >> >>> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of >>> these root servers. Is it really true? >> >> Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is >> seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". >> >>> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >>> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. >> >> Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is >> distributed. >> >>> 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? >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >>> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but >>> 13 root server operators, >> >> Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). >> >>> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >>> physical location points. >> >> In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by >> 12 organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. >> >>> 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. >> >> 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 >> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). >> >>> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >>> present debate. Any answers? >> >> 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. >> >>> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> Merging a subsequent note: >> >> On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >>> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >>> operator to his own anycast server. >> >> 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. >> >>> This is a pretty centralised control, 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. >> >> 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? >> >> 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. >> >>> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? >> >> Yes. Really. >> >> Regards, >> -drc >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Tue Aug 7 02:56:51 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 23:56:51 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <3FD80E83-82D0-4BD2-AC22-D2793A4AEE9B@virtualized.org> Parminder, I was going to respond point by point to your message, but decided it is a waste of time: it would appear clear your mind is made up and further attempts at explaining technical reality is unlikely to be helpful. Instead, I'll just summarize: - Regardless of how you choose to arbitrarily redefine accepted technical terminology or what insults/innuendo you choose cast, there are a set of 12 root server operators who run a set of machines that respond to DNS queries sent to 13 IPv4 addresses with referrals to TLDs. The function those machines serve are indistinguishable at a protocol level -- contrary to your assertions, there is no 3-layer hierarchy in root servers. - Several root server operators are happy to deploy copies of those machines in order to improve latency/resiliency, however those root server operators maintain administrative control over the services those machines provide (as much as they can). - Contrary to the statement made by the Indian minister of communications and IT, Internet traffic does not pass through 13 machines (2 in Western Europe and 2 in Japan). Your efforts to redefine what that minister said are ... interesting but his statements would appear to stand on their own merits. - As evidenced by that minister's comments (which are unfortunately not unique), I believe there is a lack of understanding of how the Internet actually works within some government ministries/departments/etc, perhaps aided and abetted by some interested in changing the status quo to address their own political agendas. To paraphrase a US politician, everyone is entitled to pursue their own political agendas, they are not entitled to their own facts. I am interested in understanding how actual facts (which by definition (and contrary to how you appear to view them) are without political spin) can be provided to try to raise the level of discussion. - I won't bother going into the technical details as to why exactly the number 13 is what it is and is hard to change since it is clear you will choose not to listen. I will simply note that there would be tremendous commercial advantage to the company that came up with how to solve this particular issue in a backwards compatible manner and I know of number of VCs here in Silicon Valley who would undoubtedly be willing to throw large barrels of money at the company. I'll be happy to make introductions. Regards, -drc P.S. Having been involved in multilingual DNS since the mid-90s as well as in deploying the first IDN TLDs, it actually was and is "a bit difficult to rely upon" (and I personally think the solution the IETF came up with is broken, but at least a solution was chosen). On Aug 6, 2012, at 10:17 PM, parminder wrote: > David, > > On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: >> Parminder, >> >> On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder wrote: >>> 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 . >> >> No. >> >> There is a "distribution master". > > 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; > "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. Each of these is an actual root server." > 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). > > "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without mechanisms of control and intervention." > > Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt it obvious! > > 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 :) > >> (snip) >> >> That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. > 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 > > "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) > > 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. > > 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! > > 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'. > >> (snip) >>> 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. >> >> As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. > > 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. > >> >>> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual neutral/ technical information. >> >> Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to communicate. > > :). 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! >> >> (snip) >> >> 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. > 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. > >> >>> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the world happy. >> >> Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own root server would make the people of the world happy. > 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. > > regards > parminder > >> >>> 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. >> >> 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". >> >> 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? >> >>> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of these root servers. Is it really true? >> >> Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". >> >>> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to what goes in and from the authoritative root server. >> >> Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is distributed. >> >>> 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? >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >>> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 root server operators, >> >> Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). >> >>> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not physical location points. >> >> In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. >> >>> 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. >> >> 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 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). >> >>> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the present debate. Any answers? >> >> 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. >> >>> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> Merging a subsequent note: >> >> On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >>> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast operator to his own anycast server. >> >> 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. >> >>> This is a pretty centralised control, 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. >> >> 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? >> >> 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. >> >>> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? >> >> Yes. Really. >> >> Regards, >> -drc >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Aug 7 03:40:19 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:10:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <3FD80E83-82D0-4BD2-AC22-D2793A4AEE9B@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <3FD80E83-82D0-4BD2-AC22-D2793A4AEE9B@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <5020C663.8050100@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 07 August 2012 12:26 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Parminder, > > I was going to respond point by point to your message, but decided it > is a waste of time: it would appear clear your mind is made up and > further attempts at explaining technical reality is unlikely to be > helpful. > snip > - I won't bother going into the technical details as to why exactly > the number 13 is what it is and is hard to change since it is clear > you will choose not to listen. I will simply note that there would be > tremendous commercial advantage to the company that came up with how > to solve this particular issue in a backwards compatible manner and I > know of number of VCs here in Silicon Valley who would undoubtedly be > willing to throw large barrels of money at the company. I'll be happy > to make introductions. This is getting into a extreme 'cant be done' or at least 'is extremely difficult to do' position. However let me quote what you said in your email of Aug 3 responding to Siva. The answer to "why?" is quite simple: the original DNS specification limited the guaranteed supported size of a DNS message to 512 bytes and 13 IP(v4) addresses is all you can fit in a message of that size. While the DNS specifications have evolved to support larger messages, it turns out a surprisingly (at least to me) large percentage of the infrastructure refuses to allow those larger messages (the refusals being largely due to old software, broken implementations, or security policy that mistakenly assumes DNS messages must be less than or equal to 512 bytes in length). It does not at all sound as an unfixable problem to me. And these above are your own words! Now whether we get down to trying and solving it simply depends on how badly we feel the political necessity, which I understand we feel differently about. I hear that changes to DNS message specifications have been done to accommodate the security requirements of DNSEC application, am I right? Just different political priorities then! I am indeed listening to you, proven by fact of the above quote coming back to my mind.... In any case, for me the issue is geopolitically just distribution of root server management, and if new servers are difficult, we should reallocate the current ones. Is there any unsurmountable technical problem there? snip > > P.S. Having been involved in multilingual DNS since the mid-90s as > well as in deploying the first IDN TLDs, it actually was and is "a bit > difficult to rely upon" (and I personally think the solution the IETF > came up with is broken, but at least a solution was chosen). That is the point I am making; when we need to , we do come up with a solution. Similarly we can find the technical solution with regard to root server management issue. Because the original 'capture' logic for a distributed root management system requires a different system response now. regards, parminder > > On Aug 6, 2012, at 10:17 PM, parminder > wrote: > >> David, >> >> On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: >>> Parminder, >>> >>> On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder >> > wrote: >>>> 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 . >>> >>> No. >>> >>> There is a "distribution master". >> >> 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; >> >> "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server >> instances. Each of these is an actual root server." >> >> 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). >> >> >> "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without >> mechanisms of control and intervention." >> >> Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress >> (or forget to mention) depends on their techno-political >> proclivities. Isnt it obvious! >> >> 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 :) >> >>> (snip) >>> >>> That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true >>> root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. >> 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 >> >> "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) >> >> 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. >> >> 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! >> >> 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'. >> >>> (snip) >>>> 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. >>> >>> As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. >> >> 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. >> >>> >>>> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual >>>> neutral/ technical information. >>> >>> Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to >>> communicate. >> >> :). 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! >>> >>> (snip) >>> >>> 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. >> 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. >> >>> >>>> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >>>> world happy. >>> >>> Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their >>> own root server would make the people of the world happy. >> 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. >> >> regards >> parminder >> >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> 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". >>> >>> 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? >>> >>>> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 >>>> of these root servers. Is it really true? >>> >>> Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control >>> is seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". >>> >>>> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >>>> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. >>> >>> Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is >>> distributed. >>> >>>> 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? >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>>> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but >>>> 13 root server operators, >>> >>> Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). >>> >>>> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >>>> physical location points. >>> >>> In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by >>> 12 organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> 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 >>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). >>> >>>> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >>>> present debate. Any answers? >>> >>> 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. >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Merging a subsequent note: >>> >>> On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >>>> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >>>> operator to his own anycast server. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>>> This is a pretty centralised control, 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. >>> >>> 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? >>> >>> 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. >>> >>>> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? >>> >>> Yes. Really. >>> >>> Regards, >>> -drc >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Tue Aug 7 04:00:35 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 01:00:35 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5020B448.9060407@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020B448.9060407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <875CBC93-DF65-4E0D-B6CC-DBE0AD912FE5@virtualized.org> On Aug 6, 2012, at 11:23 PM, parminder wrote: > Now, it is obvious that the decision to do the above was a political decision, including the choice of which all agencies should operation of root servers be distributed over. It was basically a US decision As a point of historical information, it was actually a decision made (for good or ill) by Jon Postel. He probably informed USG agencies (e.g., NSF or DARPA) of the later ones (probably after the fact) but knowing Jon, I do not believe the USG played a large role in any of the decisions. > The logic of 'no single entity having the authority or control over operation of root server' does not stand close geo-political scrutiny, esp in today's world. I suspect the root server operators would disagree with this statement (strongly), but I am not them so I will not comment. > Now, would you fault someone if he were to reason that the present strategy against 'capture' vis a vis the operation or the root/ DNS system of the Internet, while laudable in its initial intentions, is not quite adequate, and is not in keeping with times. I wouldn't, no. (the irony is great here for those that know my relationship with the root server operators :-)) > One can suggest that given the current situation of the Internet, the very same laudable intention of avoiding capture that informed the present root server system, when it was instituted, requires us to change the system. Is it really all that illegitimate a political demand. What is your response to this question? Illegitimate? No. I've actually made similar arguments myself on numerous occasions, sometimes in colorful terminology I'm told. However, you seem to be missing/ignoring a core concept: there is no central control of the root servers. I realize this is hard for folks inculcated with the ITU/monopoly PTT worldview to fully grasp (I've had the discussion about how the root system works with government official many times and invariably get "you're kidding" in response) but it is reality. Given this, to whom will you make your demand, regardless of its legitimacy? > No, this is not an aside. This is the only question that the Indian and African minister really brought to the table, something which triggered and underlies the present discussion. Actually, I believe what triggered the underlying discussion is a simple desire for control and a simple lack of understanding of what they were demanding control of. Your dressing up of this simple desire and lack of understanding in the political rhetoric of North/South conflict does not turn the pig's ear into a silk purse. What I am primarily interested in is addressing the lack of understanding. I have an undoubtedly naive hope that if people actually understand what it is they're after, it will moderate their desire to control it. For example: I believe that if people actually understood the role of the root servers and the implications of gaining control over one, they'd realize it isn't "the droids they're looking for". What I believe they _really_ want is control over the data the root servers serve. If that is not what they want then their desires should be addressed by getting an anycast root server instance (mirror). > This will require an examination of the following questions > > (1) whether the number 13 can be breached, and more root server operators created, and/or As I said in my previous message, I won't bother explaining why this isn't really an option as I doubt you'll listen. However, to avoid your accusations that I'm withholding information for political purposes, I will note that extension mechanisms in the DNS protocol have been defined that allow for more than 13 addresses and that extension is now mandatory for all DNS servers (it is necessary to support IPv6). Unfortunately, the existing Internet infrastructure (in particular, the cheap customer routers at the edge of the network and the myriad of broken firewall policies that think DNS messages larger than 512 bytes are attacks) has proven to be too brittle for that extension (known as EDNS0) to be relied upon for root service. This will presumably change over time, but I'm not holding my breath. > (2) the existing root server operations can be reallocated. As mentioned in a previous note, this is also possible and has, in fact been done in the past. All you need to do is convince one of the existing root server operators to give up their root server. Oh, and I imagine there will be a bit of a political food fight if the world finds out a root server is available. After all, obviously deserves a root server for ! Should be quite interesting to watch (in the slow motion train wreck kind of way). > This is the political demand from the South which cannot just be pooh poohed by describing its ministers as ill-informed or stupid. We seek full engagement of the civil society and other actors with this political demand. I don't recall calling anyone "stupid". It seems to me that one of the fundamental impedance mismatches that is occurring is the implicit assumption that there is an overarching entity to which these sorts of political demands can be made and which will act upon those demands. From an Internet technologist's point of view, this assumption is false: the Internet is composed of a multitude of privately operated autonomous networks and systems that agree amongst themselves on a set of parameters to ensure the networks interoperate. There simply is no central authority. The venues in which the operators of those networks and systems come to agreement on those parameters are places like ICANN, the IETF, and the RIRs, however those bodies aren't in control -- they merely implement the agreements (formal or informal) that are made in their respective venues. I know this doesn't fit with how governments want to view the Internet. So it goes. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chrisb at ripe.net Tue Aug 7 04:29:45 2012 From: chrisb at ripe.net (Chris Buckridge) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:29:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5020BBA7.7070303@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org>,<5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AEAF1@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <5020BBA7.7070303@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <37A89BEE-17F9-4F7F-97B5-4C75A5A67BF4@ripe.net> On Aug 7, 2012, at 8:54 AM, parminder wrote: > 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. Hello Parminder, all, I suspect this was a temporary misstatement on your part, Parminder, but I think it is worth correcting the record given the context of this (very interesting) exchange. RIPE NCC (which is secretariat of the open RIPE community and operator of K-root) is the RIR for Europe, the Middle East and parts of Central Asia, not North America (ARIN serves as RIR for that region). http://k.root-servers.org/ Best regards, Chris Buckridge RIPE NCC -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Aug 7 04:45:14 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:15:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <37A89BEE-17F9-4F7F-97B5-4C75A5A67BF4@ripe.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org>,<5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AEAF1@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <5020BBA7.7070303@itforchange.net> <37A89BEE-17F9-4F7F-97B5-4C75A5A67BF4@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5020D59A.3050608@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 07 August 2012 01:59 PM, Chris Buckridge wrote: > On Aug 7, 2012, at 8:54 AM, parminder wrote: > >> 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. > Hello Parminder, all, > > I suspect this was a temporary misstatement on your part, Parminder, but I think it is worth correcting the record given the context of this (very interesting) exchange. RIPE NCC (which is secretariat of the open RIPE community and operator of K-root) is the RIR for Europe, the Middle East and parts of Central Asia, not North America (ARIN serves as RIR for that region). Thanks for correcting, Chris. Yes sorry a mis-statement. parminder > > http://k.root-servers.org/ > > Best regards, > > Chris Buckridge > RIPE NCC > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 7 05:04:08 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:04:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <9LxGQt+IoNIQFAcX@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <5020A4F9.7030401 at itforchange.net>, at 10:47:45 on Tue, 7 Aug 2012, parminder writes >"As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. >Each of these is an actual root server." > >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'. In the quotation above, "an actual root server" means a box which has been deployed to a physical location. The purpose of the mirrors (or "instances" as they are generally called) is to provide a server which is closer to its users and therefore [generally] more efficient and resilient in terms of Internet connectivity. 'Who provides the data for the servers' is indeed a different layer. I'm sure it would help if these two concepts were better understood to be separate; I'm working on that, as a simple factual exercise. >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 Just as potentially, every ISP whose own DNS servers are queried by their customers could also exercise control over the results which are given. Sometimes that's by accident, but occasionally it's by design. It works like this: When I want my ISP to fetch some data from igcaucus.org, the first step is to ask my ISP to translate igcaucus.org into an IP address. The only role the root server has is to periodically remind my ISP of the location of .org's name servers/zone files - because the ISP caches the result. So that's the first stage completed: getting a list of .org's name servers. While knowing where the .org name servers are is fundamental, the second stage is much more important on a day to day basis: querying one of those .org name servers to find out where to obtain information on the location of igcaucus's server. And what the .org name server tells us is: where to find a name server run by the organisation chosen by igcausus to 'host' their domain[1]. And finally, that third name server delivers us the required IP address. > [the Indian Minister] 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) No. All that the root servers do is inform the world where to find the name servers[2] for each TLD. And even those TLD name servers don't have a role in directing traffic, they just help tell us where the end point is. A whole different set of technology [referred to as "Routing"] decides how to get from here to there, principally using a protocol called BGP. ps Remember the caching of the root zone file by the ISP? Well, all the other queries are cached as well. Which explains the delay when you move the hosting of a domain. It usually takes a while (often two days) for all the caching to expire, and for users to be directed to the new end point. [1] For those who are still with me, that information for igcaucus happens to be kept by Tucows, in a record administered by Avri. [2] Which host the zone files for... -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Aug 7 05:21:34 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:51:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <875CBC93-DF65-4E0D-B6CC-DBE0AD912FE5@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020B448.9060407@itforchange.net> <875CBC93-DF65-4E0D-B6CC-DBE0AD912FE5@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <5020DE1E.4020609@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 07 August 2012 01:30 PM, David Conrad wrote: > snip >> One can suggest that given the current situation of the Internet, the >> very same laudable intention of avoiding capture that informed the >> present root server system, when it was instituted, requires us to >> change the system. Is it really all that illegitimate a political >> demand. What is your response to this question? > > Illegitimate? No. I've actually made similar arguments myself on > numerous occasions, sometimes in colorful terminology I'm told. > > However, you seem to be missing/ignoring a core concept: *there is no > central control of the root servers*. I realize this is hard for folks > inculcated with the ITU/monopoly PTT worldview to fully grasp (I've > had the discussion about how the root system works with government > official many times and invariably get "you're kidding" in response) > but it is reality. > > Given this, to whom will you make your demand, regardless of its > legitimacy? David, I understand that we agree that the current distribution of root server operators in not fine, and should be changed. However, the question is how to do so. I still think increasing the number is a feasible alternative to look into, and we must, but lets not discuss it for the present. Lets look at reallocation possibility alone, to which your response is that 'how do you do it' and 'to whom do you make the demand'. Ok, here I will need help with technical information again. Your main point is that "the Internet is composed of a multitude of privately operated autonomous networks and systems that agree amongst themselves on a set of parameters to ensure the networks interoperate. There simply is no central authority." However, we know that this is not fully true for everything about the Internet's architecture. There indeed is a single root, and single operative authority over it. And things do get changed in this apex system which are mandatory and applicable to the whole Internet. We did for instance have the Iraq' cctld re-delegated, apart from other more regular changes done all the time. So, my technical question is, is it not that the root server authority to 12/13 operators gets allocated in some way from a central point, IANA, in a way that if needed, it can be reallocated, like a cctld can be reallocated by appropriate changes in the root zone file. I read that private key etc issues are involved, but any such system is centrally managed, right. The original DNS message from the root may simply carry the 13 IP addresses of root servers that it wants to carry and not others, I see this a central lever that can help enforce a policy decision if taken at ICANN or whatever level. I can understand that downstream systems will be looking for specific IP addressed they know as to be the root servers, but still, is the whole changeover simply impossible, even if transiting in phases, building redundancy etc. If a political decision is takne at ICANN level (with its bottom up policy process and all) that this is the way we want it to be, I dont think most actors will simply refuse to comply, whereby still if one or two indeed do, the system should be able to work around it through the mentioned levers of control. If we indeed keep saying, the present system is as it is, and all players with all kinds of vested interests have to agree to all changes, well, we can keep saying it. It just gives proposals like the one from China for an autonomous Internet more political weight and traction. If we indeed want to resist such moves to cut the Internet along national boundaries we will have to stick our neck out, and do all we can do to address the legitimate demands of non US and Southern actors. And democraticising the distribution to root servers is one such legitimate demand. As I proposed we can start with allocating one each to all RIRs. Are we as a group, IGC, technical community etc ready to take an initiative in this direction. SNIP > > It seems to me that one of the fundamental impedance mismatches that > is occurring is the implicit assumption that there is an overarching > entity to which these sorts of political demands can be made and which > will act upon those demands. From an Internet technologist's point of > view, this assumption is false: If indeed legitimate political demands cannot be made and realised in the global Internet space than there is a serious gap in our political ecology here. This is not a natural condition for societies to exist in a just and sustainable way. So, if what you say is true, we should collectively take steps to fill this serious gap/ void... regards, parminder > the Internet is composed of a multitude of privately operated > autonomous networks and systems that agree amongst themselves on a set > of parameters to ensure the networks interoperate. There simply is no > central authority. The venues in which the operators of those > networks and systems come to agreement on those parameters are places > like ICANN, the IETF, and the RIRs, however those bodies aren't in > control -- they merely implement the agreements (formal or informal) > that are made in their respective venues. > > I know this doesn't fit with how governments want to view the > Internet. So it goes. > > Regards, > -drc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Aug 7 09:20:14 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 10:20:14 -0300 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> >From the point of view of political control, given the current pyramidal architecture of the DNS, it really does not matter (except for technical questions of redundancy and DNS traffic optimization) how many replicators there are, there is only one server, the "distribution master" (the a.root-servers.net) called by David where the root zone file is stored and modified. This is the only place in which there is NTIA-authorized/controlled change in the root (the so-called "IANA function"), and all the other 12 and the hundreds of Anycast servers just replicate - the Anycast servers being replicators of replicators in nearly all cases (except for six replicating directly from a.root-servers.net). A new gTLD/ccTLD will never become alive if NTIA does not give the "nihil obstat" to insert it in this file in this "mother of all servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, depending on your level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters in Virginia. NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of Commitments says. If a saboteur explodes this server installation (each one of the 13 is actually a cluster for resilience and security), does the Internet stop? No, of course, the net of replicators will make sure the Internet continues to operate fine. But no more changes in the root, Virginia, until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep a dialogue with the USA instead. :) Aside from the root servers, 16 of the largest 20 DNS servers in the planet are in the USA, hosting many millions of domain pointers to Web services *worldwide* -- millions of websites in Latin America, for example, depend on these servers and corresponding hosting services. Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... frt rgds --c.a. On 08/07/2012 02:17 AM, parminder wrote: > David, > > On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: >> Parminder, >> >> On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder > > wrote: >>> 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 . >> >> No. >> >> There is a "distribution master". > > 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; > > "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. > Each of these is an actual root server." > > 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). > > > "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without > mechanisms of control and intervention." > > Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or > forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt > it obvious! > > 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 :) > >> (snip) >> >> That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true >> root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. > 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 > > "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) > > 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. > > 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! > > 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'. > >> (snip) >>> 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. >> >> As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. > > 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. > >> >>> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual >>> neutral/ technical information. >> >> Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to >> communicate. > > :). 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! >> >> (snip) >> >> 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. > 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. > >> >>> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >>> world happy. >> >> Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own >> root server would make the people of the world happy. > 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. > > regards > parminder > >> >>> 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. >> >> 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". >> >> 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? >> >>> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of >>> these root servers. Is it really true? >> >> Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is >> seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". >> >>> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >>> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. >> >> Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is >> distributed. >> >>> 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? >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >>> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 >>> root server operators, >> >> Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). >> >>> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >>> physical location points. >> >> In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 >> organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. >> >>> 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. >> >> 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 >> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). >> >>> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >>> present debate. Any answers? >> >> 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. >> >>> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> Merging a subsequent note: >> >> On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >>> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >>> operator to his own anycast server. >> >> 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. >> >>> This is a pretty centralised control, 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. >> >> 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? >> >> 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. >> >>> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? >> >> Yes. Really. >> >> Regards, >> -drc >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Tue Aug 7 10:16:00 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:16:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <69D57E7C-B59E-4E44-AF45-65A1FBFB1D82@uzh.ch> Hi Carlos On Aug 7, 2012, at 3:20 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > "mother of all > servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, depending on your > level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters in Virginia. Maybe next we could debate whether there's an underground tunnel? > But no more changes in the root, Virginia, > until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) Watch your language…is this a new swearword for IG geeks? BD -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Aug 7 10:18:41 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 19:48:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <502123C1.8030309@itforchange.net> Dear Carlos Thanks for the simplification. So, you are saying that since the real control is at the IANA level vis a vis the root zone file, it is almost of no political importance who runs the 13 root servers. I understand that the real issue is about root zone file changes, but just thought that, in the first instance, if the root servers can be distributed to locations/ agencies that have great global trust and possible ownership, that would be a small step in the right direction. You dont think so? Keeping up a dialogue with the US is fine, but it seems to be going nowhere :). So perhaps nibbling around the current architectures in small ways may have some eventual cumulative effect. US may have problem with giving up the single point of control, and would extend that battle as much as it can. However, there is so much less justification not to share the root server operation around, because you give without losing anything/ much. For other countries, that perhaps just gives that much more backup security and resilience in the eventuality of any monkey business by the US with the root, like interfering with a cctld. I heard David etc go to great length in an earlier discussion on how a root server operator may refuse to publish the root zone file in case of improper changes. But for that, the operator has to be sufficiently away from US's friendly or other kinds of influence. I do understand that in extreme contingencies, that I am trying to account for here, any server, including anycast one, can be set up to work as a root server, but I would think it would greatly help stability if it is an existing root server. But you seem to feel that overall to reallocate root server operations may not be worth all the effort it will entail. Is it so? I will defer to your opinion on this. regards, parminder On Tuesday 07 August 2012 06:50 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >From the point of view of political control, given the current pyramidal > architecture of the DNS, it really does not matter (except for technical > questions of redundancy and DNS traffic optimization) how many > replicators there are, there is only one server, the "distribution > master" (the a.root-servers.net) called by David where the root zone > file is stored and modified. > > This is the only place in which there is NTIA-authorized/controlled > change in the root (the so-called "IANA function"), and all the other 12 > and the hundreds of Anycast servers just replicate - the Anycast servers > being replicators of replicators in nearly all cases (except for six > replicating directly from a.root-servers.net). > > A new gTLD/ccTLD will never become alive if NTIA does not give the > "nihil obstat" to insert it in this file in this "mother of all > servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, depending on your > level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters in Virginia. > NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing > ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of > Commitments says. > > If a saboteur explodes this server installation (each one of the 13 is > actually a cluster for resilience and security), does the Internet stop? > No, of course, the net of replicators will make sure the Internet > continues to operate fine. But no more changes in the root, Virginia, > until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) > > If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the > Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 > servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 > "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? > > Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep > a dialogue with the USA instead. :) Aside from the root servers, 16 of > the largest 20 DNS servers in the planet are in the USA, hosting many > millions of domain pointers to Web services *worldwide* -- millions of > websites in Latin America, for example, depend on these servers and > corresponding hosting services. > > Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common > knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 08/07/2012 02:17 AM, parminder wrote: >> David, >> >> On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: >>> Parminder, >>> >>> On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder >> > wrote: >>>> 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 . >>> No. >>> >>> There is a "distribution master". >> 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; >> >> "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. >> Each of these is an actual root server." >> >> 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). >> >> >> "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without >> mechanisms of control and intervention." >> >> Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or >> forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt >> it obvious! >> >> 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 :) >> >>> (snip) >>> >>> That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true >>> root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. >> 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 >> >> "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) >> >> 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. >> >> 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! >> >> 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'. >> >>> (snip) >>>> 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. >>> As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. >> 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. >> >>>> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual >>>> neutral/ technical information. >>> Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to >>> communicate. >> :). 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! >>> (snip) >>> >>> 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. >> 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. >> >>>> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >>>> world happy. >>> Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own >>> root server would make the people of the world happy. >> 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. >> >> regards >> parminder >> >>>> 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. >>> 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". >>> >>> 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? >>> >>>> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of >>>> these root servers. Is it really true? >>> Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is >>> seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". >>> >>>> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >>>> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. >>> Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is >>> distributed. >>> >>>> 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? >>> 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. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>>> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 >>>> root server operators, >>> Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). >>> >>>> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >>>> physical location points. >>> In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 >>> organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. >>> >>>> 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. >>> 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 >>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). >>> >>>> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >>>> present debate. Any answers? >>> 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. >>> >>>> 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. >>> 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. >>> >>> Merging a subsequent note: >>> >>> On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >>>> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >>>> operator to his own anycast server. >>> 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. >>> >>>> This is a pretty centralised control, 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. >>> 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? >>> >>> 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. >>> >>>> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? >>> Yes. Really. >>> >>> Regards, >>> -drc >>> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 7 10:23:41 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:23:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In message <5021160E.4090209 at cafonso.ca>, at 10:20:14 on Tue, 7 Aug 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes >there is only one server, the "distribution >master" (the a.root-servers.net) called by David where the root zone >file is stored and modified. Is it the same server as a.root-servers.net, or a relatively undisclosed non-public server? ... >If a saboteur explodes this server installation (each one of the 13 is >actually a cluster for resilience and security), does the Internet stop? >No, of course, the net of replicators will make sure the Internet >continues to operate fine. But no more changes in the root, Virginia, >until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) Or the root server operators could rapidly devise a new ad-hoc arrangement for distributing updates - that's one of the benefits of being an informal system. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Aug 7 10:32:07 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 11:32:07 -0300 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <69D57E7C-B59E-4E44-AF45-65A1FBFB1D82@uzh.ch> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <69D57E7C-B59E-4E44-AF45-65A1FBFB1D82@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <502126E7.9040600@cafonso.ca> :) On 08/07/2012 11:16 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Carlos > > On Aug 7, 2012, at 3:20 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> "mother of all >> servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, depending on your >> level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters in Virginia. > > Maybe next we could debate whether there's an underground tunnel? > >> But no more changes in the root, Virginia, >> until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) > > Watch your language…is this a new swearword for IG geeks? > > BD > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Aug 7 10:40:02 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 11:40:02 -0300 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <502123C1.8030309@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <502123C1.8030309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <502128C2.7030908@cafonso.ca> On 08/07/2012 11:18 AM, parminder wrote: > Dear Carlos > > Thanks for the simplification. > > So, you are saying that since the real control is at the IANA level vis > a vis the root zone file, it is almost of no political importance who > runs the 13 root servers. No, in terms of political control, there is a stellar difference between who runs the "A" server (and is authorized under strict NTIA supervision to change its DNS data file) and who runs all the other 12 servers. Also of political importance is the decision of authorizing Anycast servers to tie up to any of the 13 servers, but I do not think there is a relevant problem here -- I have seen no one complaining that they could not deploy Anycast because none of the 13 servers' operators agreed. My vision is, in summary: the political center in terms of DNS control is *who controls the "A" server and is authorized (by whom) to modify its DNS data file know as the "root zone file"*. If there are no political barriers to run Anycast anywhere, the issue of where the other 12 servers are located is irrelevant. frt rgds --c.a. > > I understand that the real issue is about root zone file changes, but > just thought that, in the first instance, if the root servers can be > distributed to locations/ agencies that have great global trust and > possible ownership, that would be a small step in the right direction. > You dont think so? > > Keeping up a dialogue with the US is fine, but it seems to be going > nowhere :). So perhaps nibbling around the current architectures in > small ways may have some eventual cumulative effect. > > US may have problem with giving up the single point of control, and > would extend that battle as much as it can. However, there is so much > less justification not to share the root server operation around, > because you give without losing anything/ much. For other countries, > that perhaps just gives that much more backup security and resilience in > the eventuality of any monkey business by the US with the root, like > interfering with a cctld. I heard David etc go to great length in an > earlier discussion on how a root server operator may refuse to publish > the root zone file in case of improper changes. But for that, the > operator has to be sufficiently away from US's friendly or other kinds > of influence. I do understand that in extreme contingencies, that I am > trying to account for here, any server, including anycast one, can be > set up to work as a root server, but I would think it would greatly help > stability if it is an existing root server. > > But you seem to feel that overall to reallocate root server operations > may not be worth all the effort it will entail. Is it so? I will defer > to your opinion on this. > > regards, parminder > > On Tuesday 07 August 2012 06:50 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >From the point of view of political control, given the current pyramidal >> architecture of the DNS, it really does not matter (except for technical >> questions of redundancy and DNS traffic optimization) how many >> replicators there are, there is only one server, the "distribution >> master" (the a.root-servers.net) called by David where the root zone >> file is stored and modified. >> >> This is the only place in which there is NTIA-authorized/controlled >> change in the root (the so-called "IANA function"), and all the other 12 >> and the hundreds of Anycast servers just replicate - the Anycast servers >> being replicators of replicators in nearly all cases (except for six >> replicating directly from a.root-servers.net). >> >> A new gTLD/ccTLD will never become alive if NTIA does not give the >> "nihil obstat" to insert it in this file in this "mother of all >> servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, depending on your >> level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters in Virginia. >> NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing >> ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of >> Commitments says. >> >> If a saboteur explodes this server installation (each one of the 13 is >> actually a cluster for resilience and security), does the Internet stop? >> No, of course, the net of replicators will make sure the Internet >> continues to operate fine. But no more changes in the root, Virginia, >> until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) >> >> If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the >> Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 >> servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 >> "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? >> >> Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep >> a dialogue with the USA instead. :) Aside from the root servers, 16 of >> the largest 20 DNS servers in the planet are in the USA, hosting many >> millions of domain pointers to Web services *worldwide* -- millions of >> websites in Latin America, for example, depend on these servers and >> corresponding hosting services. >> >> Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common >> knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 08/07/2012 02:17 AM, parminder wrote: >>> David, >>> >>> On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: >>>> Parminder, >>>> >>>> On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder >>> > wrote: >>>>> 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 . >>>> No. >>>> >>>> There is a "distribution master". >>> 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; >>> >>> "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. >>> Each of these is an actual root server." >>> >>> 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). >>> >>> >>> "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without >>> mechanisms of control and intervention." >>> >>> Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or >>> forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt >>> it obvious! >>> >>> 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 :) >>> >>>> (snip) >>>> >>>> That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true >>>> root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. >>> 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 >>> >>> "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) >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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! >>> >>> 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'. >>> >>>> (snip) >>>>> 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. >>>> As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. >>> 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. >>> >>>>> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual >>>>> neutral/ technical information. >>>> Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to >>>> communicate. >>> :). 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! >>>> (snip) >>>> >>>> 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. >>> 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. >>> >>>>> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >>>>> world happy. >>>> Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own >>>> root server would make the people of the world happy. >>> 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. >>> >>> regards >>> parminder >>> >>>>> 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. >>>> 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". >>>> >>>> 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? >>>> >>>>> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of >>>>> these root servers. Is it really true? >>>> Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is >>>> seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". >>>> >>>>> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >>>>> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. >>>> Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is >>>> distributed. >>>> >>>>> 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? >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>>> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 >>>>> root server operators, >>>> Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). >>>> >>>>> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >>>>> physical location points. >>>> In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 >>>> organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> 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 >>>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). >>>> >>>>> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >>>>> present debate. Any answers? >>>> 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. >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Merging a subsequent note: >>>> >>>> On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >>>>> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >>>>> operator to his own anycast server. >>>> 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. >>>> >>>>> This is a pretty centralised control, 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. >>>> 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? >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>>> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? >>>> Yes. Really. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> -drc >>>> >>> >>> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Tue Aug 7 11:01:00 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:01:00 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <278B86E5-703E-40F6-A378-CD3F965E3E6B@virtualized.org> Carlos, On Aug 7, 2012, at 6:20 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > there is only one server, the "distribution > master" (the a.root-servers.net) called by David where the root zone > file is stored and modified. A clarification: a.root-servers.net, the machine(s) that resides at IP address 198.41.0.4, is NOT the distribution master. Long ago, it used to be, however now it is merely one of 13 and is different only in the number of queries it receives (a bit higher than the others, probably due to people not-so-arbitrarily picking it to run "is the Internet working"-type tests). As mentioned, the real "distribution master" is a special machine that is not exposed to the public and which responds only to a limited set of queries related to zone transfer that have a shared secret password (a transaction signature (TSIG) key) in them. The technical term describing this architecture is "stealth master" but I hesitate to use that term given your aside related to the CIA and the risk of inflaming interest/paranoia (:-)). > NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing > ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of > Commitments says. Yes. In a previous note, I described the root zone management process. All root zone changes go from ICANN to NTIA for authorization before they are processed by Verisign who edits the root zone and notifies the root servers of those changes. I do not believe the Affirmation of Commitments references this process -- it is part of the IANA Functions contract. > If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the > Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 > servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 > "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? > > Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep > a dialogue with the USA instead. :) Exactly. The scenario that has been posited in the past was the US government "going rogue" and making inappropriate root zone changes. My argument is that theoretically, this is possible, but would be ridiculously unlikely as it would be political suicide. Just as theoretically, the non-US root server operators could choose not to honor those changes. Given the latter, it is even less likely the former would occur. > Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common > knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... I would like to believe not, however given the comments made by the Indian minister and on this list, I'm unsure whether this knowledge is 'abundantly common'. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hakik at hakik.org Tue Aug 7 12:02:31 2012 From: hakik at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 17:02:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <278B86E5-703E-40F6-A378-CD3F965E3E6B@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <278B86E5-703E-40F6-A378-CD3F965E3E6B@virtualized.org> Message-ID: I agree with David. Whatever the reason, majority of the concerned personalities in these technically lagging countries (my apologies, for this term, but this is to mention about clarification of minute technicalities around the root zone, and IANA function, or optimization of DNS traffic) are in lack of sufficient information. I remember while conducting a workshop on root server during its installation in 2004, many of the attendees were not aware of the functionality though came from technical background. Hope things have improved by now, but yet to catch up with these minute details. This discussion is getting interesting. Thanks for sharing and discussing. Best regards, Hakikur At 16:01 07-08-2012, David Conrad wrote: >Carlos, > >On Aug 7, 2012, at 6:20 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > > there is only one server, the "distribution > > master" (the a.root-servers.net) called by David where the root zone > > file is stored and modified. > >A clarification: > >a.root-servers.net, the machine(s) that resides at IP address >198.41.0.4, is NOT the distribution master. Long ago, it used to >be, however now it is merely one of 13 and is different only in the >number of queries it receives (a bit higher than the others, >probably due to people not-so-arbitrarily picking it to run "is the >Internet working"-type tests). > >As mentioned, the real "distribution master" is a special machine >that is not exposed to the public and which responds only to a >limited set of queries related to zone transfer that have a shared >secret password (a transaction signature (TSIG) key) in them. The >technical term describing this architecture is "stealth master" but >I hesitate to use that term given your aside related to the CIA and >the risk of inflaming interest/paranoia (:-)). > > > NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing > > ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of > > Commitments says. > >Yes. In a previous note, I described the root zone management >process. All root zone changes go from ICANN to NTIA for >authorization before they are processed by Verisign who edits the >root zone and notifies the root servers of those changes. I do not >believe the Affirmation of Commitments references this process -- it >is part of the IANA Functions contract. > > > If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the > > Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 > > servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 > > "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? > > > > Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep > > a dialogue with the USA instead. :) > >Exactly. The scenario that has been posited in the past was the US >government "going rogue" and making inappropriate root zone changes. >My argument is that theoretically, this is possible, but would be >ridiculously unlikely as it would be political suicide. Just as >theoretically, the non-US root server operators could choose not to >honor those changes. Given the latter, it is even less likely the >former would occur. > > > Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common > > knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... > >I would like to believe not, however given the comments made by the >Indian minister and on this list, I'm unsure whether this knowledge >is 'abundantly common'. > >Regards, >-drc > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From info at freshmail.de Tue Aug 7 12:21:57 2012 From: info at freshmail.de (Matthias Pfeifer - freshmail) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 18:21:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <502123C1.8030309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hello Parminder, ----- Original Message ----- From: "parminder" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) > Dear Carlos > > Thanks for the simplification. > > So, you are saying that since the real control is at the IANA level vis > a vis the root zone file, it is almost of no political importance who > runs the 13 root servers. > > I understand that the real issue is about root zone file changes, but > just thought that, in the first instance, if the root servers can be > distributed to locations/ agencies that have great global trust and > possible ownership, that would be a small step in the right direction. > You dont think so? In respect of the history of the DNS, don't we trust the actual root server operator? Who else could have "a great global trust" right now to manage the root zone. And, are there 10 (or 12) places of "a great global trust" which where we can operate root server (sources) or which we can operate "the dot". I think to make things (here in a semi technical but political way) better, we need alternate things which we can switch to. I case of the root, i cannot see such alternates, which doesn't mean that the current place it is the best place we could ever have. > > Keeping up a dialogue with the US is fine, but it seems to be going > nowhere :). So perhaps nibbling around the current architectures in > small ways may have some eventual cumulative effect. > > US may have problem with giving up the single point of control, and > would extend that battle as much as it can. However, there is so much > less justification not to share the root server operation around, > because you give without losing anything/ much. For other countries, > that perhaps just gives that much more backup security and resilience in > the eventuality of any monkey business by the US with the root, like > interfering with a cctld. I heard David etc go to great length in an > earlier discussion on how a root server operator may refuse to publish > the root zone file in case of improper changes. But for that, the > operator has to be sufficiently away from US's friendly or other kinds > of influence. I do understand that in extreme contingencies, that I am > trying to account for here, any server, including anycast one, can be > set up to work as a root server, but I would think it would greatly help > stability if it is an existing root server. > > But you seem to feel that overall to reallocate root server operations > may not be worth all the effort it will entail. Is it so? I will defer > to your opinion on this. > > regards, parminder > > On Tuesday 07 August 2012 06:50 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >From the point of view of political control, given the current pyramidal >> architecture of the DNS, it really does not matter (except for technical >> questions of redundancy and DNS traffic optimization) how many >> replicators there are, there is only one server, the "distribution >> master" (the a.root-servers.net) called by David where the root zone >> file is stored and modified. >> >> This is the only place in which there is NTIA-authorized/controlled >> change in the root (the so-called "IANA function"), and all the other 12 >> and the hundreds of Anycast servers just replicate - the Anycast servers >> being replicators of replicators in nearly all cases (except for six >> replicating directly from a.root-servers.net). >> >> A new gTLD/ccTLD will never become alive if NTIA does not give the >> "nihil obstat" to insert it in this file in this "mother of all >> servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, depending on your >> level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters in Virginia. >> NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing >> ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of >> Commitments says. >> >> If a saboteur explodes this server installation (each one of the 13 is >> actually a cluster for resilience and security), does the Internet stop? >> No, of course, the net of replicators will make sure the Internet >> continues to operate fine. But no more changes in the root, Virginia, >> until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) >> >> If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the >> Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 >> servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 >> "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? >> >> Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep >> a dialogue with the USA instead. :) Aside from the root servers, 16 of >> the largest 20 DNS servers in the planet are in the USA, hosting many >> millions of domain pointers to Web services *worldwide* -- millions of >> websites in Latin America, for example, depend on these servers and >> corresponding hosting services. >> >> Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common >> knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 08/07/2012 02:17 AM, parminder wrote: >>> David, >>> >>> On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: >>>> Parminder, >>>> >>>> On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder >>> > wrote: >>>>> 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 . >>>> No. >>>> >>>> There is a "distribution master". >>> 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; >>> >>> "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. >>> Each of these is an actual root server." >>> >>> 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). >>> >>> >>> "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without >>> mechanisms of control and intervention." >>> >>> Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or >>> forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt >>> it obvious! >>> >>> 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 :) >>> >>>> (snip) >>>> >>>> That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true >>>> root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. >>> 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 >>> >>> "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) >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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! >>> >>> 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'. >>> >>>> (snip) >>>>> 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. >>>> As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. >>> 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. >>> >>>>> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual >>>>> neutral/ technical information. >>>> Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to >>>> communicate. >>> :). 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! >>>> (snip) >>>> >>>> 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. >>> 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. >>> >>>>> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >>>>> world happy. >>>> Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own >>>> root server would make the people of the world happy. >>> 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. >>> >>> regards >>> parminder >>> >>>>> 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. >>>> 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". >>>> >>>> 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? >>>> >>>>> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of >>>>> these root servers. Is it really true? >>>> Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is >>>> seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". >>>> >>>>> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >>>>> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. >>>> Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is >>>> distributed. >>>> >>>>> 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? >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>>> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 >>>>> root server operators, >>>> Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). >>>> >>>>> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >>>>> physical location points. >>>> In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 >>>> organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> 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 >>>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). >>>> >>>>> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >>>>> present debate. Any answers? >>>> 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. >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Merging a subsequent note: >>>> >>>> On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >>>>> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >>>>> operator to his own anycast server. >>>> 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. >>>> >>>>> This is a pretty centralised control, 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. >>>> 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? >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>>> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? >>>> Yes. Really. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> -drc >>>> >>> >>> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 13:49:59 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 20:49:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] In Interview, Romney Brings Arab Spring Into Presidential Race - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Interesting article. It seems Romney is using a different strategy than Obama in their race to the White-house. However, I think the USA have more internal issues to deal with rather than trying to impress the world with their international policy (ex. financial recession). I guess the mess they did in Afghanistan and Iraq is more than enough. In addition, and looking at the business opportunities in the Arab world (mainly Libya, Egypt, and Qatar), it would be a "Satisfying Israel" vs. "Multi-billion dollar business in the Arab world". Since Romney is a business man, I think he should focus more on saving the US economy rather than providing soft cushion stances towards certain countries. I admire Obama for bridging the gap with China and improving their relationship with each other. Fahd On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/in-interview-romney-brings-arab-spring-into-presidential-race/ > > This is going to be soul food for the Arab IGF I suppose. > > Fouad > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 13:58:38 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 20:58:38 +0300 Subject: [governance] In Interview, Romney Brings Arab Spring Into Presidential Race - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sala, it has become common norms to have Arab business in countries one (especially Arab citizens) might never imagine existed. In my country Jordan, there is a huge corruption scandal regarding a local phosphate company that has been registered in an Eastern Asian island (do not want to mention names here as means not to hurt citizens of that/those countries). When the lid was un-covered, they claimed that the company was owned by investors from those islands. After deep investigations, they found that all investors were Jordanians that managed to buy the company from the government (was owned by the government until the time it was sold) at a discount price. The scandal involves really big names that have fled the country. Fahd On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> Yes Sala, >> >> The Arab Spring issue as Foreign Policy is also the soul food of ITU ITR >> discussions. The paranoia surrounding the Arab Spring across the globe is >> just unbelievably indigestible. >> > The RMI context was that the ICT company that was engaged to roll out > Universal Service had to bail out under "Force Majeure" because they were a > Libyan company. > >> Fouad Bajwa >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 13:09:30 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:09:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5020DE1E.4020609@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020B448.9060407@itforchange.net> <875CBC93-DF65-4E0D-B6CC-DBE0AD912FE5@virtualized.org> <5020DE1E.4020609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:21 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 07 August 2012 01:30 PM, David Conrad wrote: > > snip > > One can suggest that given the current situation of the Internet, the very > same laudable intention of avoiding capture that informed the present root > server system, when it was instituted, requires us to change the system. Is > it really all that illegitimate a political demand. What is your response to > this question? > > > Illegitimate? No. I've actually made similar arguments myself on numerous > occasions, sometimes in colorful terminology I'm told. > > However, you seem to be missing/ignoring a core concept: there is no central > control of the root servers. I realize this is hard for folks inculcated > with the ITU/monopoly PTT worldview to fully grasp (I've had the discussion > about how the root system works with government official many times and > invariably get "you're kidding" in response) but it is reality. > > Given this, to whom will you make your demand, regardless of its legitimacy? > > > David, I understand that we agree that the current distribution of root > server operators in not fine, and should be changed. However, the question > is how to do so. I still think increasing the number is a feasible > alternative to look into, and we must, but lets not discuss it for the > present. Lets look at reallocation possibility alone, to which your response > is that 'how do you do it' and 'to whom do you make the demand'. > > Ok, here I will need help with technical information again. Your main point > is that "the Internet is composed of a multitude of privately operated > autonomous networks and systems that agree amongst themselves on a set of > parameters to ensure the networks interoperate. There simply is no central > authority." > > However, we know that this is not fully true for everything about the > Internet's architecture. There indeed is a single root, and single operative > authority over it. And things do get changed in this apex system which are > mandatory and applicable to the whole Internet. We did for instance have the > Iraq' cctld re-delegated, apart from other more regular changes done all the > time. > > So, my technical question is, is it not that the root server authority to > 12/13 operators gets allocated was "allocated" or "assigned", not "gets". In other words very much past tense. Even "assigned" or "allocated" are too strong. Folk with ability to run nameservers were asked if they could take on this task, and the current rootops are the ones that said yes. in some way from a central point, IANA, in a > way that if needed, it can be reallocated, like a cctld can be reallocated > by appropriate changes in the root zone file. no, not in the sense that IANA still has any control over these rootops (as in IANA can't "take them back"). I read that private key etc > issues are involved, but any such system is centrally managed, right. no The > original DNS message from the root may simply carry the 13 IP addresses of > root servers that it wants to carry and not others, I see this a central > lever that can help enforce a policy decision if taken at ICANN or whatever > level. I can't parse this. The rootservers serve the rootzone. it is here: http://www.internic.net/domain/root.zone > > I can understand that downstream systems will be looking for specific IP > addressed they know as to be the root servers, but still, is the whole > changeover simply impossible, even if transiting in phases, building > redundancy etc. If a political decision is takne at ICANN level again, this is NOT within the ICANN purview, rootops are independent (mostly). One has signed an MoU with ICANN IIRC. (with its > bottom up policy process and all) that this is the way we want it to be, I > dont think most actors will simply refuse to comply, whereby still if one or > two indeed do, the system should be able to work around it through the > mentioned levers of control. You can ask the rootops to give up their rootserver obligations, but I doubt you will get much traction. > > If we indeed keep saying, the present system is as it is, and all players > with all kinds of vested interests have to agree to all changes, well, we > can keep saying it. It just gives proposals like the one from China for an > autonomous Internet more political weight and traction. it doesn't actually (if you actually read the RFC from China Telecom guys). If we indeed want to > resist such moves to cut the Internet along national boundaries we will have > to stick our neck out, and do all we can do to address the legitimate > demands of non US and Southern actors. Can we be precise and say "some non US and Southern actors"? I would even say a vocal minority, but have no way to gauge that accurately. NB there are also US and Northern actors who might seek a change as well. And democraticising the distribution > to root servers is one such legitimate demand. I am not sure it is legitimate. How do you measure legitimacy? As I proposed we can start > with allocating one each to all RIRs. Are we as a group, IGC, technical > community etc ready to take an initiative in this direction. but they all have rootserver instances hosted in their server rooms anyway. I doubt that all RIRs have the budgetary means to run a global anycast cloud. It is a serious six-figure commitment anually!! > > SNIP > > > It seems to me that one of the fundamental impedance mismatches that is > occurring is the implicit assumption that there is an overarching entity to > which these sorts of political demands can be made and which will act upon > those demands. From an Internet technologist's point of view, this > assumption is false: > > > If indeed legitimate political demands cannot be made and realised in the > global Internet space than there is a serious gap in our political ecology > here. This is not a natural condition for societies to exist in a just and > sustainable way. Is it a legitimate political demand to want to move x number of rootops to places outside the US? I would say no. Is it possible to do it? yes, it might be, if you could find x number of orgs to commit to spending millions of USD over the lifetime of the rootserver AND you could find some rootops willing to give up their role. However, this won't/can't be done centrally. So, if what you say is true, we should collectively take > steps to fill this serious gap/ void... tilt at all the windmills you like. As far as the IGC goes, I think we should not spend any energy on this task. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Tue Aug 7 13:17:40 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:17:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5020DE1E.4020609@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020B448.9060407@itforchange.net> <875CBC93-DF65-4E0D-B6CC-DBE0AD912FE5@virtualized.org> <5020DE1E.4020609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Aug 7, 2012, at 2:21 AM, parminder wrote: > Ok, here I will need help with technical information again. Your main point is that "the Internet is composed of a multitude of privately operated autonomous networks and systems that agree amongst themselves on a set of parameters to ensure the networks interoperate. There simply is no central authority." Yes. > However, we know that this is not fully true for everything about the Internet's architecture. I wasn't speaking of the Internet architecture, I was speaking about Internet resource administration. > There indeed is a single root, This is architecture. > and single operative authority over it. And things do get changed in this apex system which are mandatory and applicable to the whole Internet. This is administration and the changes work because the multitude of privately operated autonomous networks and systems agree that the singly-rooted DNS namespace originates from 13 special (in the sense that they are hardwired into resolvers) IP addresses. If one of those operators decides they do not agree, they change those IP addresses in their systems or modify their view of the data served from those addresses (see China). The "authority" does not reside in the center, but rather at the edges (most typically but not exclusively with network operators). > We did for instance have the Iraq' cctld re-delegated, apart from other more regular changes done all the time. You are confused about the Iraq ccTLD re-delegation, but that's irrelevant. > So, my technical question is, is it not that the root server authority to 12/13 operators gets allocated in some way from a central point, IANA, > in a way that if needed, it can be reallocated, like a cctld can be reallocated by appropriate changes in the root zone file. Not really. Making a global change for a ccTLD means updating a single data repository managed by a single entity (currently Verisign). Changing the IP address of a root server globally means updating _millions_ of separate data repositories all over the planet, some of which are in embedded systems that people don't normally touch and most are operated by different entities. Changing root server addresses can and will occur (the last was when "L" was renumbered and "D" really needs to get renumbered for technical reasons) but the old address will continue to get queries for a very long time (I'm told the IP address of a root server that was involved in a renumbering back in the early 90s still gets tens to hundreds of queries per second). As such, it has to be done cooperatively. > I read that private key etc issues are involved, but any such system is centrally managed, right. The management of the the private keys (I assume you mean the shared secret to fetch the root zone from the distribution master) isn't relevant since the root zone is published in other places than the distribution master. > The original DNS message from the root may simply carry the 13 IP addresses of root servers that it wants to carry and not others, The relevant component of the DNS here are the resolvers. Pretty much every ISP on the planet runs one or more (they are what most of the ISP's customers query to resolve names) and there are resolvers built into everything from some applications (e.g., browsers) to embedded microcontrollers to infrastructural components like mobile network gateways. Many technical folks run resolvers on their laptops and I know folks have ported resolvers to smartphones. Within those resolvers are the same (more or less) 13 IP addresses either compiled into the binary or in a configuration file. Changing a root server address means updating one of those 13 addresses in all of those resolvers all over the planet. > I can understand that downstream systems will be looking for specific IP addressed they know as to be the root servers, but still, is the whole changeover simply impossible, even if transiting in phases, building redundancy etc. As stated several times, no, it is not impossible as long as it is done cooperatively, which gets back to convincing one or more of the existing 12 root server operators that it would be in their best interests to give up their root server. However, if there is cooperation, it is infinitely easier to simply transfer the root server IP address to the new entity than to deal with renumbering. > If a political decision is takne at ICANN level (with its bottom up policy process and all) that this is the way we want it to be, I dont think most actors will simply refuse to comply, whereby still if one or two indeed do, the system should be able to work around it through the mentioned levers of control. Assume ICANN decides that the "K" root server operated by RIPE-NCC should be given to North Korea ("K" - Korea, get it? :-)), despite RIPE-NCC's objections. My guess would be that RIPE-NCC would be unlikely to give up the IP address willingly. Two options then: 1) "K" could be renumbered to a North Korean IP address; and 2) RIPE-NCC could be forced to give up the IP address it uses for "K". In option (1), ISPs and other resolver owners around the world would have to update their resolvers to reflect the new IP address. I would imagine ISPs in the RIPE service region (in particular) would not be excited about this prospect and would likely resist such a change (to avoid your inevitable accusations of me applying "techno-political" spin, I'll note that for most (not all) resolvers, there is an initial query that asks 'what are the root server IP addresses' so the changed IP address will be propagated automatically unless people take special actions. However in this scenario, I suspect it highly like people will take special actions). In addition, resolver vendors around the world (ISC, NLNetLabs, PowerDNS, Microsoft, Nominum, Cisco, etc.) would have to put the new IP address in their distributions. I suspect it likely at least some of those would balk at this demand -- after all, who is ICANN (some small, private, US-based, California incorporated non-profit -- you might have heard ICANN referenced this way in the past) to demand such a thing? That leaves option (2). I believe your argument is that the US government could apply pressure to the government of the Netherlands to force the appropriation of the RIPE-NCC IP address used for "K". As I'm not knowledgable about international or Dutch law, I'll let others comment on this particular scenario but I suspect positive/timely results unlikely. And in the end, rational folks will probably ask "Why are we doing this again? Everything seems to work fine now..." to which your response would be "Kim Jong Un must have the ability to modify the contents of the root zone file on one of the root servers if the US government goes rogue!"? > And democraticising the distribution to root servers is one such legitimate demand. I would ask you to please try to be more precise in your terminology. Anycast mirrors of root servers serve to democratize the distribution of root servers and address legitimate _technical_ requirements. What you are demanding is the "democratization" of root server _ownership_ for purposes of control. As discussed, this is much trickier and I suspect will likely require appropriation of resources (now) considered corporate assets. Whether or not this is legitimate is likely in the eye of the beholder. >> It seems to me that one of the fundamental impedance mismatches that is occurring is the implicit assumption that there is an overarching entity to which these sorts of political demands can be made and which will act upon those demands. From an Internet technologist's point of view, this assumption is false: > > If indeed legitimate political demands cannot be made and realised in the global Internet space than there is a serious gap in our political ecology here. This is getting far afield from my area of expertise, but from my perspective: welcome to a decentralized world. It requires cooperation and consensus of a myriad stakeholders, not a reliance on central authority figure. As I said, I know this doesn't fit with how governments want to view the Internet. Note that I am not arguing this is good or bad (I have my opinions on this but they are irrelevant). I'm merely stating this is how things are. > This is not a natural condition for societies to exist in a just and sustainable way. Actually, another view is that it _is_ the natural condition (unless you are arguing countries have a single overarching authority figure they can rely on -- if so, I think I need only point to the UN's ability to affect events in Syria as a counterpoint), the only difference is that the players that need to cooperate and reach consensus are much more diverse than simply nation-states. > So, if what you say is true, we should collectively take steps to fill this serious gap/ void... So we can have an overarching authority figure that can force decisions on folks without consensus? Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 13:52:39 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 20:52:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] In Interview, Romney Brings Arab Spring Into Presidential Race - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: True Fouad. One of the main reasons behind that is the business surrounding it. Some countries require re-structuring from close-to scratch zero. Fahd On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Yes Sala, > > The Arab Spring issue as Foreign Policy is also the soul food of ITU ITR > discussions. The paranoia surrounding the Arab Spring across the globe is > just unbelievably indigestible. > > Fouad Bajwa > On Aug 5, 2012 1:01 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >>> >>> http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/in-interview-romney-brings-arab-spring-into-presidential-race/ >>> >>> This is going to be soul food for the Arab IGF I suppose. >>> >> Having being at a recent Pacific Broadband Forum organised by the ITU in >> Fiji which followed the APT meeting. I was surprised to hear the Republic >> of Marshall Islands (RMI) talk about how the Arab Spring affected ICT >> development in RMI. ;) (chuckling) >> >>> Fouad >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Tue Aug 7 21:38:56 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:38:56 +0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> On 8/7/2012 8:20 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > From the point of view of political control, given the current pyramidal > architecture of the DNS, it really does not matter (except for technical > questions of redundancy and DNS traffic optimization) how many > replicators there are, there is only one server, the "distribution > master" (the a.root-servers.net) called by David where the root zone > file is stored and modified. Thanks, Carlos. I am surely less technically qualified than many others discussing here - it is more than a decade since I created .kh and administered it for some years. I do NOT understand what the debate here is about - discussing the location of the 12, or of the many mirrors - when it is a debate over possible changes in the political control of this system. Only what happens or does not happen on the Alpha Server makes any difference (and it is replicated down the lines throughout all the sub-systems) I understand. Wrong? So any question about control of the 12 and the mirrors is only about technical details. If the "control" question is pointing at anything else but the Alpha Server it is not changing anything fundamentally. Correct or wrong? Norbert Klein -- Norbert Klein nhklein at gmx.net http://www.thinking21.org > > This is the only place in which there is NTIA-authorized/controlled > change in the root (the so-called "IANA function"), and all the other 12 > and the hundreds of Anycast servers just replicate - the Anycast servers > being replicators of replicators in nearly all cases (except for six > replicating directly from a.root-servers.net). > > A new gTLD/ccTLD will never become alive if NTIA does not give the > "nihil obstat" to insert it in this file in this "mother of all > servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, depending on your > level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters in Virginia. > NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing > ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of > Commitments says. > > If a saboteur explodes this server installation (each one of the 13 is > actually a cluster for resilience and security), does the Internet stop? > No, of course, the net of replicators will make sure the Internet > continues to operate fine. But no more changes in the root, Virginia, > until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) > > If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the > Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 > servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 > "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? > > Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep > a dialogue with the USA instead. :) Aside from the root servers, 16 of > the largest 20 DNS servers in the planet are in the USA, hosting many > millions of domain pointers to Web services *worldwide* -- millions of > websites in Latin America, for example, depend on these servers and > corresponding hosting services. > > Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common > knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 08/07/2012 02:17 AM, parminder wrote: >> David, >> >> On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: >>> Parminder, >>> >>> On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder >> > wrote: >>>> 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 . >>> No. >>> >>> There is a "distribution master". >> 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; >> >> "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. >> Each of these is an actual root server." >> >> 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). >> >> >> "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without >> mechanisms of control and intervention." >> >> Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or >> forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt >> it obvious! >> >> 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 :) >> >>> (snip) >>> >>> That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true >>> root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. >> 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 >> >> "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) >> >> 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. >> >> 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! >> >> 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'. >> >>> (snip) >>>> 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. >>> As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. >> 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. >> >>>> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual >>>> neutral/ technical information. >>> Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to >>> communicate. >> :). 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! >>> (snip) >>> >>> 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. >> 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. >> >>>> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >>>> world happy. >>> Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own >>> root server would make the people of the world happy. >> 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. >> >> regards >> parminder >> >>>> 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. >>> 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". >>> >>> 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? >>> >>>> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of >>>> these root servers. Is it really true? >>> Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is >>> seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". >>> >>>> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >>>> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. >>> Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is >>> distributed. >>> >>>> 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? >>> 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. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>>> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 >>>> root server operators, >>> Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). >>> >>>> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >>>> physical location points. >>> In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 >>> organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. >>> >>>> 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. >>> 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 >>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). >>> >>>> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >>>> present debate. Any answers? >>> 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. >>> >>>> 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. >>> 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. >>> >>> Merging a subsequent note: >>> >>> On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >>>> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >>>> operator to his own anycast server. >>> 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. >>> >>>> This is a pretty centralised control, 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. >>> 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? >>> >>> 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. >>> >>>> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? >>> Yes. Really. >>> >>> Regards, >>> -drc >>> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Aug 7 21:46:15 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:46:15 -0300 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <278B86E5-703E-40F6-A378-CD3F965E3E6B@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <278B86E5-703E-40F6-A378-CD3F965E3E6B@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <5021C4E7.8050207@cafonso.ca> Good clarification, David. Thx! frt rgds --c.a. On 08/07/2012 12:01 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Carlos, > > On Aug 7, 2012, at 6:20 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >> there is only one server, the "distribution >> master" (the a.root-servers.net) called by David where the root zone >> file is stored and modified. > > A clarification: > > a.root-servers.net, the machine(s) that resides at IP address 198.41.0.4, is NOT the distribution master. Long ago, it used to be, however now it is merely one of 13 and is different only in the number of queries it receives (a bit higher than the others, probably due to people not-so-arbitrarily picking it to run "is the Internet working"-type tests). > > As mentioned, the real "distribution master" is a special machine that is not exposed to the public and which responds only to a limited set of queries related to zone transfer that have a shared secret password (a transaction signature (TSIG) key) in them. The technical term describing this architecture is "stealth master" but I hesitate to use that term given your aside related to the CIA and the risk of inflaming interest/paranoia (:-)). > >> NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing >> ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of >> Commitments says. > > Yes. In a previous note, I described the root zone management process. All root zone changes go from ICANN to NTIA for authorization before they are processed by Verisign who edits the root zone and notifies the root servers of those changes. I do not believe the Affirmation of Commitments references this process -- it is part of the IANA Functions contract. > >> If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the >> Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 >> servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 >> "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? >> >> Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep >> a dialogue with the USA instead. :) > > Exactly. The scenario that has been posited in the past was the US government "going rogue" and making inappropriate root zone changes. My argument is that theoretically, this is possible, but would be ridiculously unlikely as it would be political suicide. Just as theoretically, the non-US root server operators could choose not to honor those changes. Given the latter, it is even less likely the former would occur. > >> Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common >> knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... > > I would like to believe not, however given the comments made by the Indian minister and on this list, I'm unsure whether this knowledge is 'abundantly common'. > > Regards, > -drc > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Aug 8 02:27:20 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 07:27:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> Message-ID: <7vRHZ5ZIbgIQFAvD@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <5021C330.9070803 at gmx.net>, at 08:38:56 on Wed, 8 Aug 2012, Norbert Klein writes >I do NOT understand what the debate here is about - discussing the >location of the 12, or of the many mirrors - when it is a debate over >possible changes in the political control of this system There is certainly the possibility of a debate about changes in the political control of the distribution master - or perhaps control of the file loaded onto the distribution master. However, what we started discussing was the comment that: "Globally, internet traffic passes through 13 root servers. Nine of them are in the US, two each in Japan and Western Europe. These servers move the information. I believe India and other countries ought to play a much more relevant role in managing traffic flows. And we have gone on to see that there are many more than 13 servers (although only 12 server operators), and global internet traffic does not pass through them. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Aug 8 02:38:42 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:08:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> Message-ID: <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> Norbert, On Wednesday 08 August 2012 07:08 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: > I do NOT understand what the debate here is about - discussing the > location of the 12, or of the many mirrors - when it is a debate over > possible changes in the political control of this system. > > Only what happens or does not happen on the Alpha Server makes any > difference (and it is replicated down the lines throughout all the > sub-systems) I understand. Wrong? > > So any question about control of the 12 and the mirrors is only about > technical details. If the "control" question is pointing at anything > else but the Alpha Server it is not changing anything fundamentally. > Correct or wrong? You have asked a good question - what is the debate here :) You seem to agree with Carlos that the political issue is ONLY vis a vis the control over the alpha server, which we now know is in fact not the alpha server that a new 'stealth server'. All other root servers, including their anycast extensions, simply and ONLY reflect the root zone file, and so it does not matter who controls them. As for location, there has not been any known difficulty to locate new anycasts anywhere. Fair enough. Now, I will have to take you, and others who may still be with us, to a long discussion on 'US's oversight' over CIRs - chiefly the IANA function, that took place in June on this list. David was greatly involved in it. When I and others argued why US cannot be relied on to have the unilateral authority to change the root file at its will - the MAIN argument by David and others was; the 13, or at least 9, root zone operators will very likely simply refuse to publish a file so changed by the US. This 'system feature' was listed as the MAIN defence that things are not as problematic as some of us are making them to be. McTim, Lee and others made the same argument of the 'independent decision making' by root server operators, to minimise what was seen as the 'scare' over US's fiddling with the root in its own interest. At the end of this email I provide a few quotes from among several on how this single argument was repeated employed. Whereby, when we argue about the problem with US's unilateral control over the root, the argument of 'independence of root operators' is invoked. Such independence means that the '13 root operators' systems is seen, if required, as being able to go beyond simply reflecting the root zone file. Well, it has to be one of the two; (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 (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. One of the above two must be true, and both cant be true, because they are logically exclusive arguments. It cant be that (2) is true in a discussion over IANA authority, but it becomes untrue when we discuss distribution of root server operators in a geo-political even and just manner. This alone is my case. I can accept either (1) to be true, in which case the argument of independence of root server operators to publish what they want should NOT be used in an IANA related argument (David, McTim, Lee et all, are you there :) ) Or I can accept (2) to be true, in which case, I will appeal to Carlos for sympathy to the argument that redistribution of root server operation authority may be useful to be considered, while agreeing that IANA authority is a much more important question. (To be fair to David, he has said even in the present thread of discussion that 'The diversity of architecture ( of root server operators) and lack of centralized control is seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". If I surmise right, Carlos, and perhaps you, Norbert, do not think this of being of any real significance.) So, indeed there are real difference of views between, for instance David and Carlos, on the political significance of root server operator's independence (or absence of it) - and thus of political significance of who the 13 root server operators are. Such independence (or absence of it) of root operators, especially in the face of an eventuality of US's rogue behaviour, thus remains a key political issue, and in good part is the point of debate here. The answer to this question would determine whether it is worth the effort to consider reallocating root server operation authority in a more equitous manner. parminder > > > Norbert Klein > > -- > Norbert Klein > nhklein at gmx.net > http://www.thinking21.org > > > >> This is the only place in which there is NTIA-authorized/controlled >> change in the root (the so-called "IANA function"), and all the other 12 >> and the hundreds of Anycast servers just replicate - the Anycast servers >> being replicators of replicators in nearly all cases (except for six >> replicating directly from a.root-servers.net). >> >> A new gTLD/ccTLD will never become alive if NTIA does not give the >> "nihil obstat" to insert it in this file in this "mother of all >> servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, depending on your >> level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters in Virginia. >> NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing >> ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of >> Commitments says. >> >> If a saboteur explodes this server installation (each one of the 13 is >> actually a cluster for resilience and security), does the Internet stop? >> No, of course, the net of replicators will make sure the Internet >> continues to operate fine. But no more changes in the root, Virginia, >> until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) >> >> If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the >> Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 >> servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 >> "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? >> >> Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep >> a dialogue with the USA instead. :) Aside from the root servers, 16 of >> the largest 20 DNS servers in the planet are in the USA, hosting many >> millions of domain pointers to Web services *worldwide* -- millions of >> websites in Latin America, for example, depend on these servers and >> corresponding hosting services. >> >> Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common >> knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 08/07/2012 02:17 AM, parminder wrote: >>> David, >>> >>> On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: >>>> Parminder, >>>> >>>> On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder >>> > wrote: >>>>> 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 . >>>> No. >>>> >>>> There is a "distribution master". >>> 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; >>> >>> "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. >>> Each of these is an actual root server." >>> >>> 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). >>> >>> >>> "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without >>> mechanisms of control and intervention." >>> >>> Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or >>> forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt >>> it obvious! >>> >>> 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 :) >>> >>>> (snip) >>>> >>>> That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true >>>> root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. >>> 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 >>> >>> "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) >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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! >>> >>> 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'. >>> >>>> (snip) >>>>> 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. >>>> As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. >>> 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. >>> >>>>> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual >>>>> neutral/ technical information. >>>> Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to >>>> communicate. >>> :). 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! >>>> (snip) >>>> >>>> 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. >>> 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. >>> >>>>> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >>>>> world happy. >>>> Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own >>>> root server would make the people of the world happy. >>> 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. >>> >>> regards >>> parminder >>> >>>>> 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. >>>> 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". >>>> >>>> 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? >>>> >>>>> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of >>>>> these root servers. Is it really true? >>>> Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is >>>> seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". >>>> >>>>> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >>>>> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. >>>> Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is >>>> distributed. >>>> >>>>> 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? >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>>> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 >>>>> root server operators, >>>> Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). >>>> >>>>> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >>>>> physical location points. >>>> In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 >>>> organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> 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 >>>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). >>>> >>>>> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >>>>> present debate. Any answers? >>>> 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. >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Merging a subsequent note: >>>> >>>> On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >>>>> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >>>>> operator to his own anycast server. >>>> 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. >>>> >>>>> This is a pretty centralised control, 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. >>>> 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? >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>>> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? >>>> Yes. Really. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> -drc >>>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Wed Aug 8 03:05:47 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 07:05:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net>,<50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B07D5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Parminder, it may be useful to separate your problem into two parts: 1. authorization for changes in the root; 2. operation of the independent root servers, including their submission or not to an outrageously arbitrary and deletereous change in the root. That, I think, will help you parse the apparent contradictions. We all have a problem with the first's asymmetric-power situation; the second is a fail-safe mechanism for the potential excesses of the first. (Fail-safe does not mean "it cannot fail"; it means "if it fails it devolves to a safe state", sort of when well designed elevators go out of electrical power they don't sink to the bottom and crash, nor just get stuck; they fall to the next floor down and open the doors) (As a side: it may be valuable for IT4Change to recruit the assistance of some Internet engineers, for example by forming an all-volunteer Technical Advisory Board, if you don't find this too meddlesome. I've seen such an Rx work wonders in other, similar organizations elsewhere and it's a win-win. If too meddlesome please ignore. Again, happy to be corrected by those more knowledgeable.) Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Enviado el: miércoles, 08 de agosto de 2012 01:38 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Klein Asunto: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) Norbert, On Wednesday 08 August 2012 07:08 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: I do NOT understand what the debate here is about - discussing the location of the 12, or of the many mirrors - when it is a debate over possible changes in the political control of this system. Only what happens or does not happen on the Alpha Server makes any difference (and it is replicated down the lines throughout all the sub-systems) I understand. Wrong? So any question about control of the 12 and the mirrors is only about technical details. If the "control" question is pointing at anything else but the Alpha Server it is not changing anything fundamentally. Correct or wrong? You have asked a good question - what is the debate here :) You seem to agree with Carlos that the political issue is ONLY vis a vis the control over the alpha server, which we now know is in fact not the alpha server that a new 'stealth server'. All other root servers, including their anycast extensions, simply and ONLY reflect the root zone file, and so it does not matter who controls them. As for location, there has not been any known difficulty to locate new anycasts anywhere. Fair enough. Now, I will have to take you, and others who may still be with us, to a long discussion on 'US's oversight' over CIRs - chiefly the IANA function, that took place in June on this list. David was greatly involved in it. When I and others argued why US cannot be relied on to have the unilateral authority to change the root file at its will - the MAIN argument by David and others was; the 13, or at least 9, root zone operators will very likely simply refuse to publish a file so changed by the US. This 'system feature' was listed as the MAIN defence that things are not as problematic as some of us are making them to be. McTim, Lee and others made the same argument of the 'independent decision making' by root server operators, to minimise what was seen as the 'scare' over US's fiddling with the root in its own interest. At the end of this email I provide a few quotes from among several on how this single argument was repeated employed. Whereby, when we argue about the problem with US's unilateral control over the root, the argument of 'independence of root operators' is invoked. Such independence means that the '13 root operators' systems is seen, if required, as being able to go beyond simply reflecting the root zone file. Well, it has to be one of the two; (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 (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. One of the above two must be true, and both cant be true, because they are logically exclusive arguments. It cant be that (2) is true in a discussion over IANA authority, but it becomes untrue when we discuss distribution of root server operators in a geo-political even and just manner. This alone is my case. I can accept either (1) to be true, in which case the argument of independence of root server operators to publish what they want should NOT be used in an IANA related argument (David, McTim, Lee et all, are you there :) ) Or I can accept (2) to be true, in which case, I will appeal to Carlos for sympathy to the argument that redistribution of root server operation authority may be useful to be considered, while agreeing that IANA authority is a much more important question. (To be fair to David, he has said even in the present thread of discussion that 'The diversity of architecture ( of root server operators) and lack of centralized control is seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". If I surmise right, Carlos, and perhaps you, Norbert, do not think this of being of any real significance.) So, indeed there are real difference of views between, for instance David and Carlos, on the political significance of root server operator's independence (or absence of it) - and thus of political significance of who the 13 root server operators are. Such independence (or absence of it) of root operators, especially in the face of an eventuality of US's rogue behaviour, thus remains a key political issue, and in good part is the point of debate here. The answer to this question would determine whether it is worth the effort to consider reallocating root server operation authority in a more equitous manner. parminder Norbert Klein -- Norbert Klein nhklein at gmx.net http://www.thinking21.org This is the only place in which there is NTIA-authorized/controlled change in the root (the so-called "IANA function"), and all the other 12 and the hundreds of Anycast servers just replicate - the Anycast servers being replicators of replicators in nearly all cases (except for six replicating directly from a.root-servers.net). A new gTLD/ccTLD will never become alive if NTIA does not give the "nihil obstat" to insert it in this file in this "mother of all servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, depending on your level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters in Virginia. NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of Commitments says. If a saboteur explodes this server installation (each one of the 13 is actually a cluster for resilience and security), does the Internet stop? No, of course, the net of replicators will make sure the Internet continues to operate fine. But no more changes in the root, Virginia, until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep a dialogue with the USA instead. :) Aside from the root servers, 16 of the largest 20 DNS servers in the planet are in the USA, hosting many millions of domain pointers to Web services *worldwide* -- millions of websites in Latin America, for example, depend on these servers and corresponding hosting services. Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... frt rgds --c.a. On 08/07/2012 02:17 AM, parminder wrote: David, On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: Parminder, On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder > wrote: 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 . No. There is a "distribution master". 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; "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. Each of these is an actual root server." 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). "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without mechanisms of control and intervention." Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt it obvious! 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 :) (snip) That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. 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 "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) 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. 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! 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'. (snip) 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. As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. 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. This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual neutral/ technical information. Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to communicate. :). 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! (snip) 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. 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. So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the world happy. Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own root server would make the people of the world happy. 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. regards parminder 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. 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". 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? I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of these root servers. Is it really true? Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to what goes in and from the authoritative root server. Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is distributed. 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? 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. 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. I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 root server operators, Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not physical location points. In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. 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. 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 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the present debate. Any answers? 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. 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. 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. Merging a subsequent note: On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast operator to his own anycast server. 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. This is a pretty centralised control, 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. 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? 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. Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? Yes. Really. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Aug 8 04:15:35 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:15:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <50220972.8020108 at itforchange.net>, at 12:08:42 on Wed, 8 Aug 2012, parminder writes >(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 > >(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. > >One of the above two must be true, and both cant be true Well, there are other possible scenarios that you haven't listed, but number (2) is much closer to the current situation than (1). -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 05:30:55 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 11:30:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <278B86E5-703E-40F6-A378-CD3F965E3E6B@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <278B86E5-703E-40F6-A378-CD3F965E3E6B@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <502231CF.7080300@gmail.com> Thanks for all this openness and candour David, really! Like a cool breeze on a hot summers day : ) On 2012/08/07 05:01 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Carlos, > > On Aug 7, 2012, at 6:20 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >> there is only one server, the "distribution >> master" (the a.root-servers.net) called by David where the root zone >> file is stored and modified. > A clarification: > > a.root-servers.net, the machine(s) that resides at IP address 198.41.0.4, is NOT the distribution master. Long ago, it used to be, however now it is merely one of 13 and is different only in the number of queries it receives (a bit higher than the others, probably due to people not-so-arbitrarily picking it to run "is the Internet working"-type tests). > > As mentioned, the real "distribution master" is a special machine that is not exposed to the public and which responds only to a limited set of queries related to zone transfer that have a shared secret password (a transaction signature (TSIG) key) in them. The technical term describing this architecture is "stealth master" but I hesitate to use that term given your aside related to the CIA and the risk of inflaming interest/paranoia (:-)). > >> NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing >> ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of >> Commitments says. > Yes. In a previous note, I described the root zone management process. All root zone changes go from ICANN to NTIA for authorization before they are processed by Verisign who edits the root zone and notifies the root servers of those changes. I do not believe the Affirmation of Commitments references this process -- it is part of the IANA Functions contract. > >> If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the >> Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 >> servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 >> "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? >> >> Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep >> a dialogue with the USA instead. :) > Exactly. The scenario that has been posited in the past was the US government "going rogue" and making inappropriate root zone changes. My argument is that theoretically, this is possible, but would be ridiculously unlikely as it would be political suicide. Just as theoretically, the non-US root server operators could choose not to honor those changes. Given the latter, it is even less likely the former would occur. > >> Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common >> knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... > I would like to believe not, however given the comments made by the Indian minister and on this list, I'm unsure whether this knowledge is 'abundantly common'. > > Regards, > -drc > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Aug 8 07:07:37 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:37:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50224879.9050609@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 08 August 2012 01:45 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <50220972.8020108 at itforchange.net>, at 12:08:42 on Wed, 8 > Aug 2012, parminder writes > >> (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 >> >> (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. >> >> One of the above two must be true, and both cant be true > > Well, there are other possible scenarios that you haven't listed, but > number (2) is much closer to the current situation than (1). 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 distributed in a more geopolitically equitous manner - 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? Lets first agree on the need and desirability of such re-allocation, before we go to the question how to do it. parminder -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Aug 8 07:16:35 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:46:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B07D5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net>,<50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B07D5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <50224A93.7050205@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 08 August 2012 12:35 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Parminder, > > it may be useful to separate your problem into two parts: > > 1. authorization for changes in the root; Thanks for the kind advice, Alex. In fact, I have insisted repeatedly that I am only dealing with the second part as below. The first part was dealt in an earlier discussion in June with the subject line 'oversight'. > > 2. operation of the independent root servers, including their > submission or not to an outrageously arbitrary and deletereous change > in the root. Yes, this alone is the issue under consideration here. > > That, I think, will help you parse the apparent contradictions. We all > have a problem with the first's asymmetric-power situation; the second > is a fail-safe mechanism for the potential excesses of the first. So you agree that independence of root server operators indeed serves as a 'fail-safe mechanism for the potential excesses' of the unilateral root changing power with the US. In that case, you may agree that making MORE sure that the root operators are MORE independent of US gov will make the system MORE fail-safe or capture-resistant. In practical terms I mean what if instead of the present distribution of root server operators, 9 in the US and 3 in US friendly countries, we have these servers distributed in a more geopolitically equitous manner - 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? Lets first agree on the need and desirability of such re-allocation, before we go to the question of how to do it. (apologies for some repeat language from my email to Roland) parminder > > (Fail-safe does not mean "it cannot fail"; it means "if it fails it > devolves to a safe state", sort of when well designed elevators go out > of electrical power they don't sink to the bottom and crash, nor just > get stuck; they fall to the next floor down and open the doors) > > (As a side: it may be valuable for IT4Change to recruit the assistance > of some Internet engineers, for example by forming an all-volunteer > Technical Advisory Board, if you don't find this too meddlesome. I've > seen such an Rx work wonders in other, similar organizations elsewhere > and it's a win-win. If too meddlesome please ignore. Again, happy to > be corrected by those more knowledgeable.) > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Desde:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de parminder > [parminder at itforchange.net] > *Enviado el:* miércoles, 08 de agosto de 2012 01:38 > *Hasta:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Klein > *Asunto:* Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root > server misunderstanding (still...) > > Norbert, > > On Wednesday 08 August 2012 07:08 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: >> I do NOT understand what the debate here is about - discussing the >> location of the 12, or of the many mirrors - when it is a debate over >> possible changes in the political control of this system. >> >> Only what happens or does not happen on the Alpha Server makes any >> difference (and it is replicated down the lines throughout all the >> sub-systems) I understand. Wrong? >> >> So any question about control of the 12 and the mirrors is only about >> technical details. If the "control" question is pointing at anything >> else but the Alpha Server it is not changing anything fundamentally. >> Correct or wrong? > > You have asked a good question - what is the debate here :) > > You seem to agree with Carlos that the political issue is ONLY vis a > vis the control over the alpha server, which we now know is in fact > not the alpha server that a new 'stealth server'. All other root > servers, including their anycast extensions, simply and ONLY reflect > the root zone file, and so it does not matter who controls them. As > for location, there has not been any known difficulty to locate new > anycasts anywhere. Fair enough. > > Now, I will have to take you, and others who may still be with us, to > a long discussion on 'US's oversight' over CIRs - chiefly the IANA > function, that took place in June on this list. David was greatly > involved in it. When I and others argued why US cannot be relied on to > have the unilateral authority to change the root file at its will - > the MAIN argument by David and others was; the 13, or at least 9, root > zone operators will very likely simply refuse to publish a file so > changed by the US. This 'system feature' was listed as the MAIN > defence that things are not as problematic as some of us are making > them to be. McTim, Lee and others made the same argument of the > 'independent decision making' by root server operators, to minimise > what was seen as the 'scare' over US's fiddling with the root in its > own interest. At the end of this email I provide a few quotes from > among several on how this single argument was repeated employed. > > Whereby, when we argue about the problem with US's unilateral control > over the root, the argument of 'independence of root operators' is > invoked. Such independence means that the '13 root operators' systems > is seen, if required, as being able to go beyond simply reflecting the > root zone file. Well, it has to be one of the two; > > (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 > > (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. > > One of the above two must be true, and both cant be true, because they > are logically exclusive arguments. It cant be that (2) is true in a > discussion over IANA authority, but it becomes untrue when we discuss > distribution of root server operators in a geo-political even and just > manner. This alone is my case. > > I can accept either (1) to be true, in which case the argument of > independence of root server operators to publish what they want should > NOT be used in an IANA related argument (David, McTim, Lee et all, are > you there :) ) > > Or I can accept (2) to be true, in which case, I will appeal to Carlos > for sympathy to the argument that redistribution of root server > operation authority may be useful to be considered, while agreeing > that IANA authority is a much more important question. > > (To be fair to David, he has said even in the present thread of > discussion that 'The diversity of architecture ( of root server > operators) and lack of centralized control is seen as a feature as it > reduces the opportunities for "capture". If I surmise right, Carlos, > and perhaps you, Norbert, do not think this of being of any real > significance.) > > So, indeed there are real difference of views between, for instance > David and Carlos, on the political significance of root server > operator's independence (or absence of it) - and thus of political > significance of who the 13 root server operators are. > > Such independence (or absence of it) of root operators, especially in > the face of an eventuality of US's rogue behaviour, thus remains a key > political issue, and in good part is the point of debate here. The > answer to this question would determine whether it is worth the effort > to consider reallocating root server operation authority in a more > equitous manner. > > parminder > > > > >> >> >> Norbert Klein >> >> -- >> Norbert Klein >> nhklein at gmx.net >> http://www.thinking21.org >> >> >> >>> This is the only place in which there is NTIA-authorized/controlled >>> change in the root (the so-called "IANA function"), and all the other 12 >>> and the hundreds of Anycast servers just replicate - the Anycast servers >>> being replicators of replicators in nearly all cases (except for six >>> replicating directly from a.root-servers.net). >>> >>> A new gTLD/ccTLD will never become alive if NTIA does not give the >>> "nihil obstat" to insert it in this file in this "mother of all >>> servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, depending on your >>> level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters in Virginia. >>> NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing >>> ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of >>> Commitments says. >>> >>> If a saboteur explodes this server installation (each one of the 13 is >>> actually a cluster for resilience and security), does the Internet stop? >>> No, of course, the net of replicators will make sure the Internet >>> continues to operate fine. But no more changes in the root, Virginia, >>> until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) >>> >>> If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the >>> Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 >>> servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 >>> "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? >>> >>> Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep >>> a dialogue with the USA instead. :) Aside from the root servers, 16 of >>> the largest 20 DNS servers in the planet are in the USA, hosting many >>> millions of domain pointers to Web services *worldwide* -- millions of >>> websites in Latin America, for example, depend on these servers and >>> corresponding hosting services. >>> >>> Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common >>> knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... >>> >>> frt rgds >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 08/07/2012 02:17 AM, parminder wrote: >>>> David, >>>> >>>> On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: >>>>> Parminder, >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder >>>> > wrote: >>>>>> 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 . >>>>> No. >>>>> >>>>> There is a "distribution master". >>>> 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; >>>> >>>> "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. >>>> Each of these is an actual root server." >>>> >>>> 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). >>>> >>>> >>>> "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without >>>> mechanisms of control and intervention." >>>> >>>> Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or >>>> forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt >>>> it obvious! >>>> >>>> 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 :) >>>> >>>>> (snip) >>>>> >>>>> That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true >>>>> root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> "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) >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> 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! >>>> >>>> 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'. >>>> >>>>> (snip) >>>>>> 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. >>>>> As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. >>>> 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. >>>> >>>>>> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual >>>>>> neutral/ technical information. >>>>> Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to >>>>> communicate. >>>> :). 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! >>>>> (snip) >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> 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. >>>> >>>>>> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >>>>>> world happy. >>>>> Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own >>>>> root server would make the people of the world happy. >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> regards >>>> parminder >>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> 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". >>>>> >>>>> 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? >>>>> >>>>>> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of >>>>>> these root servers. Is it really true? >>>>> Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is >>>>> seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". >>>>> >>>>>> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >>>>>> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. >>>>> Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is >>>>> distributed. >>>>> >>>>>> 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? >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>>> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 >>>>>> root server operators, >>>>> Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). >>>>> >>>>>> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >>>>>> physical location points. >>>>> In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 >>>>> organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. >>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> 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 >>>>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). >>>>> >>>>>> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >>>>>> present debate. Any answers? >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> Merging a subsequent note: >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >>>>>> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >>>>>> operator to his own anycast server. >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>>> This is a pretty centralised control, 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. >>>>> 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? >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>>> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? >>>>> Yes. Really. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> -drc >>>>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Wed Aug 8 07:34:11 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:34:11 +0300 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <50224A93.7050205@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net>,<50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B07D5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <50224A93.7050205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50224EB3.8080102@digsys.bg> On 08.08.12 14:16, parminder wrote: > > In that case, you may agree that making MORE sure that the root > operators are MORE independent of US gov will make the system MORE > fail-safe or capture-resistant. In practical terms I mean what if > instead of the present distribution of root server operators, 9 in the > US and 3 in US friendly countries, we have these servers distributed > in a more geopolitically equitous manner - 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? > I say, this is asking for trouble. I also say that you will be wrong in assuming my position is to let "US" control things unilaterally. Also, please note I am painting a rather "unlikely" (but very much possible) situation to better illustrate my point. However, imagine, that in order to support the large population in say, Russia and China, two of the root operators are forced to move there (*). What prevents those two to declare "independence". Each of them, or both combined instruct their respective RIR to assume the IANA responsibilities. You may think, that common sense will not let this happen. But especially in those two countries, this is pretty easy to do and is done from time to time. Nothing you, me or anyone else arguing "this is wrong" is going to stop it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. (*) Most of the root server operators are independent entities. In a nation-state, taking over their properly would be called "nationalization". Nationalization is hard business in democratic countries. I have no idea how to call forcing an Swedish company, to transfer their business to some Chinese company -- in order to please our concept of power balance. I also have no idea of how this is handled in an international context. But this is certainly another issue that everybody seems to ignore. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 07:43:26 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 14:43:26 +0300 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Friends and colleagues, this chain of e-mails has grown to 82 messages so far (in 6 days time), and the discussions indicate that it will continue as no one is willing to step down. As Fouad mentioned in one of his e-mails, it is best to take action rather than discussing issues that in reality would not change. The current structure of root-servers, US control, why 13 root-server instances, lack of knowledge of politicians.... are issues that will remain part of our lives for years to come, and they are most probably their to last. Fahd On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > < > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120729_globally_internet_traffic_passes_through_13_root_servers/#.UBoL2jEe7hU > > > "Globally, Internet Traffic Passes Through 13 Root Servers" (!) > > > Question: Who governs the internet at present? > > Sachin Pilot, minister of state for communications and information > technology: > > "Globally, internet traffic passes through 13 root servers. Nine of them > are in the US, two each in Japan and Western Europe. These servers move the > information. I believe India and other countries ought to play a much more > relevant role in managing traffic flows. The internet is a global resource > whose governance can't be limited to a particular geography." > > (Times of India, interview > < > http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-30/edit-page/32924041_1_internet-governance-internet-corporation-root-servers > >) > > Excellent, we're back in 2002/3. > > Adam > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 08:13:35 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 08:13:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <50224879.9050609@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@