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

[McTim]

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 7:07 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
> On Wednesday 08 August 2012 01:45 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> In message <50220972.8020108 at itforchange.**net<50220972.8020108 at itforchange.net>>,
>> at 12:08:42 on Wed, 8 Aug 2012, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>> 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



you mean root operators, not servers, right??  Servers are already
distributed globally.



> distributed in a more geopolitically equitous manner


Who is to say what is "geopolitically equitous"?

What you are asking for is a change in a system that works well.

You want this change based on your (mis)perception that many root ops are
controlled by the US gov't.

What you seek is a situation where folks who haven't asked to run
root-servers will be asked to do this (by you).  This would entail them
spending (collectively) millions of USD.

This would also entail "trusting" that these new root-ops whether they are
India's IT ministry or
North Koreans or whoever would not serve a file that was somehow "tainted"
by a US action (or inaction).

Would you have these new root-ops sign an agreement?  If so with whom?
ICANN?  IANA? the UN?

If so, would this not be "centralised control" of any already
de-centralised system?

How would you convince the current root-ops to give their rootservers to
someone else?  I am not speaking for my org in this, but I think it highly
unlikely that ISC would give up "F", as it is part of our mission and
identity.



> - 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 its an unfunded mandate that they would be hard-pressed to take up.
The RIRs spend money to do what their members ask them to do.  No RIR
member has asked them to do this AFAIK.


> Lets first agree on the need and desirability of such re-allocation,
> before we go to the question how to do it.
>

Need? My answer is no.

Desirability?  Also no.


-- 
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/20120808/9bb83675/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