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

[parminder]

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120807/0818c6c3/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