[governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...)

[Sivasubramanian M]

Dear David Conrad,

On Aug 3, 2012 8:42 PM, "David Conrad" <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
>
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120804/6fe82460/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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