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

[parminder]

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120805/06da185a/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