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

[McTim]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:21 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120807/5fe8b15b/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