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

[Hakikur Rahman]

+1

Hakikur

At 23:10 09-08-2012, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
>Parminder,
>
>I've read most of the emails on this thread as 
>well as the Q&A with Sachin Pilot, the Indian 
>minister of state for communications and 
>information technology, that started it. And I'd like to make two points.
>
>Most recently I was thinking about the 
>challenges that would arise from implementing 
>such change and the potential damage that might 
>result to the stability, security, and 
>centrality or unity of the Net.  And I was 
>reminded of the arguments used in my country for 
>several decades after its founding, that 
>tinkering with that institution of chattel 
>slavery in the southern states would do severe 
>damage to the security and stability of the then 
>nascent state. That might be a somewhat harsh 
>parallel, but we are only in the first decades 
>of the Net, and its impact on us all grows daily.
>
>Second, with this conversation taking place on 
>the IGC list, your statement relating to the upcoming ITU deliberations:
>"Do you think that as a premier global IG civil 
>society group, we are giving the appropriate 
>response to the developing situation by just 
>keeping mum and thus supporting the status quo. 
>It will be most unfortunate if we simply dont 
>have any position on these issues, or even maybe 
>2-3 different sets, in these crucial times for global IG."
>
>drew me to write this +1 for your effort.
>
>It is my belief that the IGC should, minimally, 
>put forth at the coming ITU talks that we should 
>seek ways to incorporate the desires, needs, 
>dreams, and otherwise of those not currently a 
>central part of the Net's CIR into a broadened 
>circle of oversight. And that such a broadening 
>serves the goal of a stable and developing 
>Internet.  And that an exploration of 
>expansion, transfer, or movement of root 
>resources and their oversight seems a reasonable place to start.
>
>I do believe most everyone on this list supports 
>a loosening of the U.S. government's control of 
>some of its CIR reigns, albeit without damaging 
>the Net. So a statement to the effect that "IGC 
>sees merit in exploring a more equitable 
>geographic distribution of root resources" 
>should serve IGC and the Net's future. Such a 
>statement seems to fit quite well with our organization's Vision Statement:
>The policies that shape the Internet impact not 
>only the development of the technologies 
>themselves, but also the realization of 
>internationally agreed human rights, social 
>equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, 
>and both social and economic development. Our 
>vision is that Internet governance should be 
>inclusive, people centered and development 
>oriented. Our contributions to the various 
>forums relevant to Internet governance, will 
>strive to ensure an information society which 
>better enables equal opportunity and freedom for all.
>
>Best,
>
>Tom Lowenhaupt
>Jackson Heights, New York
>
>On 8/9/2012 6:23 AM, parminder wrote:
>>
>>On Thursday 09 August 2012 01:53 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>As someone who has consistently expressed 
>>>opposition to the US unilateral position as 
>>>regards root zone file authorisation, let me 
>>>say also that I do not believe Parminder’s scenario 2 is workable.
>>
>>Ian,
>>
>>I am fine with your political reasoning, and 
>>see some merit in it. But, we should accept 
>>that this is indeed a political debate. And 
>>also, when we do discuss root file 
>>authorisation issue it is not right to bring in 
>>the 13 server backup as a political 
>>justification of not doing anything or much - 
>>something which got done in the earlier discussions on the IANA role.
>>
>>However, dont you see that it is becoming 
>>politically unsustainable to not do anything 
>>about the issue of the control of the root. 
>>Should we inform the African and the Indian, 
>>minister, and I am sure, numerous other 
>>ministers, that civil society had a long 
>>discussion on their concerns regarding 
>>unequitous distribution of root operators, and 
>>came to the conclusion that other than the US 
>>and a few western countries we are not able to 
>>trust anyone - even if it were a regional 
>>system like an RIR - with root operations, even 
>>when root server operation in a non monopoly multi point redundancy operation.
>>
>>I dont think it will look nice at all. For 
>>instance, in the middle of the ITU staff and 
>>some authoritarian countries canvassing for 
>>more 'innovative' solutions through the ITU and 
>>perhaps other means as well.  Do you think 
>>that as a premier global IG civil society 
>>group, we are giving the appropriate response 
>>to the developing situation by just keeping mum 
>>and thus supporting the status quo. It will be 
>>most unfortunate if we simply dont have any 
>>position on these issues, or even maybe 2-3 
>>different sets, in these crucial times for 
>>global IG. I repeat that seeking 3 US 
>>organisations to cede their root server 
>>operation to 3 RIRs in developing world will be 
>>an important first step. It will in fact look 
>>so good for the CS to make such a demand 
>>solidly, (for instance, to the political actors 
>>in the South - non gov and gov -Â  who I can 
>>tell you, have limited trust in the neutrality 
>>of what is called the global IG civil society).
>>
>>However I do full agree with you, Carlos and 
>>others that the real issue is the IANA 
>>authority with the US. For this see below....
>>
>>
>>>snip
>>>
>>>I come back to my original position – and 
>>>perhaps the only one where we might get some 
>>>agreement and also even the possibility of 
>>>some action. The authorisation role is 
>>>completely unnecessary, whether carried out by 
>>>USA or UN or whatever. Please do not transfer 
>>>it to another body – just remove it. The 
>>>authorisation is based on recommendations 
>>>involving a set of very consultative and 
>>>exhaustive procedures. Once the ICANN 
>>>processes recommend a change after these 
>>>consultations, let that be the final authorisation.
>>
>>You know that even if the US agreed to such a 
>>position in its contract with ICANN, all ICANN 
>>actions remain subject to US court directives 
>>and to the emergency executive powers in the 
>>US. So, the ICANN has to be an international 
>>body, drawing its constitutive authority from a 
>>source other than the US state.
>>
>>Also, since ICANN has a huge operational role, 
>>it is always better to have an oversight review 
>>structure above and separate from the 
>>operational body, This is a general sound 
>>political principle. So, I still go back to my 
>>proposal for a non UN international, say, 
>>Technical Oversight Board, with members from 
>>different regions selected through an 
>>innovative process (which can be discussed) and 
>>who have a very clearly laid out and 
>>constrained mandate of oversight and confirming 
>>root changes, and whose decisions are to be taken only by a big majority.....
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I can perceive a situation where USA might 
>>>actually accept that proposition, consistent 
>>>with increasing independence of ICANN. Â I 
>>>cant see a situation where they transfer their 
>>>authorisation function to any other body.
>>
>>US will finally have to accept what the world's 
>>opinion comes out solidly in favour of. That is 
>>how global politics play out. It has huge 
>>stakes in global Internet system, especially 
>>economic, and must talk, negotiate, and where 
>>needed make concessions. It is just that we give up too easily.... parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Ian Peter Â
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>From: parminder <<parminder at itforchange.htm>parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>Reply-To: 
>>><<governance at lists.igcaucus.htm>governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, 
>>>parminder <<parminder at itforchange.htm>parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:46:35 +0530
>>>To: <<governance at lists.igcaucus.htm>governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>Subject: Re: [governance] India's 
>>>communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...)
>>>
>>>Â Â Â
>>>Â
>>>On Wednesday 08 August 2012 12:35 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote:
>>>Â
>>>Â
>>>Â Â
>>>Parminder,
>>>
>>>Â
>>>Â
>>>it may be useful to separate your problem into two parts:
>>>Â
>>>
>>>Â
>>>Â
>>>1. authorization for changes in the root;
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>Â Thanks for the kind advice, Alex. In fact, I 
>>>have insisted repeatedly that I am only 
>>>dealing with the second part as below. The 
>>>first part was dealt in an earlier discussion 
>>>in June with the subject line 'oversight'.
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Â
>>>Â
>>>2. operation of the independent root servers, 
>>>including their submission or not to an 
>>>outrageously arbitrary and deletereous change in the root.
>>>Â
>>>
>>>Yes, this alone is the issue under consideration here.
>>>Â
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Â
>>>Â
>>>That, I think, will help you parse the 
>>>apparent contradictions. We all have a problem 
>>>with the first's asymmetric-power situation; 
>>>the second is a fail-safe mechanism for the potential excesses of the first.
>>>Â
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>Â So you agree that independence of root 
>>>server operators indeed serves as a 'fail-safe 
>>>mechanism for the potential excesses' of the 
>>>unilateral root changing power with the US.
>>>Â
>>>Â In that case, you may agree that making MORE 
>>>sure that the root operators are MORE 
>>>independent of US gov will make the system 
>>>MORE fail-safe or capture-resistant. In 
>>>practical terms I mean what  if instead of 
>>>the present distribution of root server 
>>>operators, 9 in the US and 3 in US friendly 
>>>countries, we have these servers distributed 
>>>in a more geopolitically equitous manner - 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?
>>>Â
>>>Â Lets first agree on the need and 
>>>desirability of such re-allocation, before we 
>>>go to the question of how to do it.
>>>Â
>>>Â (apologies for some repeat language from my email to Roland)
>>>Â
>>>Â parminder
>>>Â
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Â
>>>Â
>>>(Fail-safe does not mean "it cannot fail"; it 
>>>means "if it fails it devolves to a safe 
>>>state", sort of when well designed elevators 
>>>go out of electrical power they don't sink to 
>>>the bottom and crash, nor just get stuck; they 
>>>fall to the next floor down and open the doors)
>>>Â
>>>
>>>Â
>>>Â
>>>(As a side: it may be valuable for IT4Change 
>>>to recruit the assistance of some Internet 
>>>engineers, for example by forming an 
>>>all-volunteer Technical Advisory Board, if you 
>>>don't find this too meddlesome. I've seen such 
>>>an Rx work wonders in other, similar 
>>>organizations elsewhere and it's a win-win. If 
>>>too meddlesome please ignore. Again, happy to 
>>>be corrected by those more knowledgeable.)
>>>Â
>>>
>>>Â
>>>Â
>>>Yours,
>>>Â
>>>
>>>Â
>>>Â
>>>Alejandro Pisanty
>>>Â
>>>
>>>Â Â
>>>
>>>! !! !!! !!!!
>>>
>>>NEW  PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO
>>>
>>>
>>>Â
>>>Â
>>>
>>>+52-1-5541444475 Â FROM ABROAD
>>>
>>>
>>>+525541444475  DESDE MÉXICO
>>>
>>>
>>>SMS Â +525541444475
>>>Â Â Â Â Â  Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
>>>Â UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>>>Â
>>>Â Blog: <http://pisanty.blogspot.com>http://pisanty.blogspot.com
>>>LinkedIn: 
>>><http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty>http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
>>>Â Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, 
>>><http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614>http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
>>>Â Twitter: <http://twitter.com/apisanty>http://twitter.com/apisanty
>>>Â ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, <http://www.isoc.org>http://www.isoc.org
>>> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .Â
>>>
>>>
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Desde: 
>>><governance-request at lists.igcaucus.htm>governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
>>>[<governance-request at lists.igcaucus.htm>governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] 
>>>en nombre de parminder [<parminder at itforchange.htm>parminder at itforchange.net]
>>> Enviado el: miércoles, 08 de agosto de 2012 01:38
>>>Â Hasta: 
>>><governance at lists.igcaucus.htm>governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Klein
>>>Â Asunto: Re: [governance] India's 
>>>communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...)
>>>Â
>>>
>>>Â
>>>Norbert,
>>>Â
>>>Â
>>>On Wednesday 08 August 2012 07:08 AM, Norbert Klein wrote:
>>>Â
>>>Â
>>>I do NOT understand what the debate here is 
>>>about - discussing the location of the 12, or 
>>>of the many mirrors - when it is a debate over 
>>>possible changes in the political control of this system.
>>>Â
>>>Â Only what happens or does not happen on the 
>>>Alpha Server makes any difference (and it is 
>>>replicated down the lines throughout all the sub-systems) I understand. Wrong?
>>>Â
>>>Â So any question about control of the 12 and 
>>>the mirrors is only about technical details. 
>>>If the "control" question is pointing at 
>>>anything else but the Alpha Server it is not 
>>>changing anything fundamentally. Correct or wrong?
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>Â You have asked a good question - what is the debate here :)
>>>Â
>>>Â You seem to agree with Carlos that the 
>>>political issue is ONLY vis a vis the control 
>>>over the alpha server, which we now know is in 
>>>fact not the alpha server that a new 'stealth 
>>>server'. All other root servers, including 
>>>their anycast extensions, simply and ONLY 
>>>reflect the root zone file, and so it does not 
>>>matter who controls them. As for location, 
>>>there has not been any known difficulty to 
>>>locate new anycasts anywhere. Fair enough.
>>>Â
>>>Â Now, I will have to take you, and others who 
>>>may still be with us, to a long discussion on 
>>>'US's oversight' over CIRs - chiefly the IANA 
>>>function, that took place in June on this 
>>>list. David was greatly involved in it. When I 
>>>and others argued why US cannot be relied on 
>>>to have the unilateral authority to change the 
>>>root file at its will - the MAIN argument by 
>>>David and others was; the 13, or at least 9, 
>>>root zone operators will very likely simply 
>>>refuse to publish a file so changed by the US. 
>>>This 'system feature' was listed as the MAIN 
>>>defence that things are not as problematic as 
>>>some of us are making them to be. McTim, Lee 
>>>and others made the same argument of the 
>>>'independent decision making' by root server 
>>>operators, to minimise what was seen as the 
>>>'scare' over US's fiddling with the root in 
>>>its own interest. At the end of this email I 
>>>provide a few quotes from among several on how 
>>>this single argument was repeated employed.
>>>Â
>>>Â Whereby, when we argue about the problem 
>>>with US's unilateral control over the root, 
>>>the argument of 'independence of root 
>>>operators' is invoked. Such independence means 
>>>that the '13 root operators' systems is seen, 
>>>if required, as being able to go beyond simply 
>>>reflecting the root zone file. Well, it has to be one of the two;
>>>Â
>>>Â (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
>>>Â
>>>Â (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.
>>>Â
>>>Â One of the above two must be true, and both 
>>>cant be true, because they are logically 
>>>exclusive arguments. It cant be that (2) is 
>>>true in a discussion over IANA authority, but 
>>>it becomes untrue when we discuss distribution 
>>>of root server operators in a geo-political 
>>>even and just manner. This alone is my case.
>>>Â
>>>Â Â I can accept either (1) to be true, in 
>>>which case the argument of independence of 
>>>root server operators to publish what they 
>>>want should NOT be used in an IANA related 
>>>argument (David, McTim, Lee et all, are you there :) )
>>>Â
>>>Â Or I can accept (2) to be true, in which 
>>>case, I will appeal to Carlos for sympathy to 
>>>the argument that redistribution of root 
>>>server operation authority may be useful to be 
>>>considered, while agreeing that IANA authority 
>>>is a much more important question.
>>>Â
>>>Â (To be fair to David, he has said even in 
>>>the present thread of discussion that 'The 
>>>diversity of architecture ( of root server 
>>>operators) and lack of centralized control is 
>>>seen as a feature as it reduces the 
>>>opportunities for "capture". If I surmise 
>>>right, Carlos, and perhaps you, Norbert, do 
>>>not think this of being of any real significance.)
>>>Â
>>>Â So, indeed there are real difference of 
>>>views between, for instance David and Carlos, 
>>>on the political significance of root server 
>>>operator's independence (or absence of it) - 
>>>and thus of political significance of who the 13 root server operators are.
>>>Â
>>>Â Such independence (or absence of it) of root 
>>>operators, especially in the face of an 
>>>eventuality of US's rogue behaviour, thus 
>>>remains a key political issue, and in good 
>>>part is the point of debate here. The answer 
>>>to this question would determine whether it is 
>>>worth the effort to consider reallocating root 
>>>server operation authority in a more equitous manner.
>>>Â
>>>Â parminder
>>>Â
>>>Â
>>>Â
>>>Â
>>>Â
>>>
>>>Â
>>>Â Norbert Klein
>>>Â
>>>Â
>>>--
>>>Â Norbert Klein
>>>Â <nhklein at gmx.htm>nhklein at gmx.net
>>>Â http://www.thinking21.org
>>>
>>>Â
>>>Â Â Â
>>>Â
>>>
>>>This is the only place in which there is NTIA-authorized/controlled
>>>change in the root (the so-called "IANA function"), and all the other 12
>>>and the hundreds of Anycast servers just replicate - the Anycast servers
>>>being replicators of replicators in nearly all cases (except for six
>>>replicating directly from a.root-servers.net).
>>>
>>>A new gTLD/ccTLD will never become alive if NTIA does not give the
>>>"nihil obstat" to insert it in this file in this "mother of all
>>>servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, depending on your
>>>level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters in Virginia.
>>>NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing
>>>ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of
>>>Commitments says.
>>>
>>>If a saboteur explodes this server installation (each one of the 13 is
>>>actually a cluster for resilience and security), does the Internet stop?
>>>No, of course, the net of replicators will make sure the Internet
>>>continues to operate fine. But no more changes in the root, Virginia,
>>>until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :)
>>>
>>>If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the
>>>Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13
>>>servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12
>>>"master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)?
>>>
>>>Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep
>>>a dialogue with the USA instead. :) Aside from the root servers, 16 of
>>>the largest 20 DNS servers in the planet are in the USA, hosting many
>>>millions of domain pointers to Web services *worldwide* -- millions of
>>>websites in Latin America, for example, depend on these servers and
>>>corresponding hosting services.
>>>
>>>Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common
>>>knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate...
>>>
>>>frt rgds
>>>
>>>--c.a.
>>>
>>>On 08/07/2012 02:17 AM, parminder wrote:
>>>Â
>>>
>>>David,
>>>
>>>On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>>>Â
>>>
>>>Parminder,
>>>
>>>On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder 
>>><<parminder at itforchange.htm>parminder at itforchange.net
>>><mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>Â
>>>
>>>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 .
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>>There is a "distribution master".
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>So, well, apologies for referring to the root zone file as the highest
>>>level of root zone server; I should perhaps simply have said 'the
>>>highest level of Internet's root architecture'. However, your chastising
>>>may be biased. Someone, quite unlike me, with deep technical training
>>>like Daniel said is a recent email;
>>>
>>>Â Â Â "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances.
>>>Â Â Â Each of these is an actual root server."
>>>
>>>Isnt this statement as or more untrue, in a discussion where we are
>>>mainly speaking about actual 'control' over the root file. The hundreds
>>>of root servers mentioned above are NOT 'actual root servers'. An actual
>>>root server is a shorthand for an actual root server operator, who
>>>exercises control (at least potentially) over the root zone file that he
>>>publishes. (I learnt this from my earlier discussions with you on the
>>>IANA authority and the US.) The 'ill-informed' Indian minister seems
>>>rather better informed than 'technical experts' here on this particular
>>>issue. He seems to know better which is a true or actual root server and
>>>which is not. Quote from the same interview where he quite wrongly said
>>>that Internet traffic flows through 13 root servers (he should have
>>>said, internet traffic, in a way, gets directed by 13 root servers).
>>>
>>>
>>>"Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without
>>>mechanisms of control and intervention."
>>>
>>>Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or
>>>forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt
>>>it obvious!
>>>
>>>In response to my another email, you have asked me to "provide examples
>>>of supposed 'statements of technical facts' that are ''thoroughly
>>>wrapped in a certain techno-political viewpoint". Apart from the above
>>>example, I will try and find others in your email below :)
>>>
>>>Â
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>That's all. Â There are no special "13" machines that are the "true
>>>root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone.
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, you did understand early in this discussion that the argument is
>>>not about 'true root servers' but about 'true root server operators', so
>>>why dont we stick to the real point of contestation rather than create
>>>strawmen and defend against them. From your email of a few days ago
>>>
>>>Â Â Â "The concern (as I understand it) is that the administration of
>>>Â Â Â those root servers is in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9
>>>Â Â Â are US-based. " (David)
>>>
>>>Yes, true. It is this what we are discussing here, not the network
>>>latency problem. In that email, you understood the concern right. It is
>>>about root server operators, and the term '13 root servers' is loosely
>>>used to mean '13 root server operators'. That is the real issue, and it
>>>was the issue that bothered the Indian and the African ministers the
>>>latter being wrongly, if not mischievously, retorted to in terms to
>>>availability of root server mirrors - a very different issue. Similarly,
>>>this current discussion is continuously pulled towards the convenient
>>>description of geographic extensions through mirrors of root servers,
>>>away from the real issue of 'concentration' (against distribution) of
>>>power to change root file or resist changes to root file that is with
>>>the root server operators and none at all with anycast mirror operators.
>>>
>>>It is very interesting that when I did that long discussion with you,
>>>David, on the US's unilateral IANA authority, your almost entire case
>>>was based on how the root server operators are really independent (which
>>>is the same thing as saying they have 'power') and this is the insurance
>>>against any US mischief with the root zone file. However, now when we
>>>are discussing the power of root server operators, which is
>>>geo-politically very unevenly distributed, the 'power' with the root
>>>server operators is sought to be so minimized as to be completely
>>>evaporated. The focus is repeatedly sought to shifted to how anyone can
>>>set up a root server and that those who speak about 13 root servers
>>>(meaning, root server operators) being not distributed well enough are
>>>merely stupid!
>>>
>>>How does what appears to be the 'same fact' take such very different
>>>manifestations in two different political arguments? This is what I mean
>>>by 'technical advice' being warped by strong techno-political
>>>viewpoints. I am not making any personal accusation. I am stating a
>>>sociological 'fact'.
>>>
>>>Â
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>Â
>>>
>>>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.
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist.
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>Well!! See above for the distinction. A clear distinction that you did
>>>understand and articulate in your earlier email in terms of
>>>concentration of ability for "administration of those root servers is in
>>>the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. " There is
>>>obvious and very important distinction between the 'power' of root zone
>>>operator and someone operating a mirror. This distinction is the very
>>>basis of the whole discussion in this thread. But you have easily and
>>>conveniently dismissed, or minimised, distinctions between the root file
>>>layer, root zone layer and anycast mirror layer, esp between these two
>>>latter layers . This is done through a unilateral decision to speak
>>>about one thing when the other party is speaking about quite another, or
>>>at least another aspect of the issue - which here is the issue of
>>>'control' rather than availability of root file for resolving queries.
>>>
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual
>>>neutral/ technical information.
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to
>>>communicate.
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>:). I made it clear at the onset that I am trying to argue that when a
>>>group has strong political inclinations - as the so called technical
>>>community has - Â its technical advice gets accordingly wrapped... Call
>>>it my conspiracy theory, but at least I am upfront. But also (try to )
>>>see how the technical community sees deep conspiracies in every single
>>>political utterance from the South. Worse its conspiracy theory is
>>>further compounded by a 'stupidity theory'. Double insult!
>>>Â
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>You misread. Â The 13 IP(v4) address limitation due to the default
>>>maximum DNS message size still exists. Â While there are now ways
>>>around this limitation (specifically, the EDNS0 extension to the DNS
>>>specification), these ways are not universally supported and as such,
>>>cannot be relied upon, particularly for root service.
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>No, I dont think I misread. Just that the fact remains that the number
>>>13 can be expanded without much difficulty, but you are not too
>>>interested to explore that direction while I am (again, political
>>>proclivities intervene). Wasnt introducing multilingual gtlds also
>>>considered a bit 'difficult to rely upon' just a few years back.
>>>Finally, political considerations helped get over that unnecessary and
>>>exaggerated fear. It depended who were taking the decisions, the US
>>>centric ICANN establishment earlier, but the same establishment with
>>>some WSIS related fears and cautions in the second instance.
>>>
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the
>>>world happy.
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own
>>>root server would make the people of the world happy.
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>This is 'the' most important point - whether there is any justification
>>>at all to increase the number or root servers and/or to reallocate /
>>>redistribute them in a manner that is politically more justifiable and
>>>thus sustainable. I will take it up in a separate email.
>>>
>>>regards
>>>parminder
>>>
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>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.
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>As mentioned in a previous note, the operators of the root servers are
>>>independent (modulo "A" and "J" (through the Verisign contract with
>>>the USG) and "E", "G", and "H" (operated by USG Departments), albeit
>>>each of these operators deal with their root servers differently). How
>>>root server operators distribute their instances is entirely their
>>>decision. Â To date, there has apparently been insufficient
>>>justification for those root server operators to decide to distribute
>>>their machines in a "geo-graphically equitable manner".
>>>
>>>With that said, there are at least two root server operators ("L"
>>>(ICANN) and "F" (ISC)) who have publicly stated they are willing to
>>>give a root server instance to anyone that asks. Perhaps the
>>>ill-informed ministers could be informed of this so they could be happy?
>>>
>>>Â
>>>
>>>I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of
>>>these root servers. Is it really true?
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is
>>>seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture".
>>>
>>>Â
>>>
>>>Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to
>>>what goes in and from the authoritative root server.
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is
>>>distributed.
>>>
>>>Â
>>>
>>>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?
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>In practical terms, the "reallocation of a root server" boils down to
>>>transferring the root server's IP address and telling the new owner
>>>the zone transfer password.
>>>
>>>Before the DNS became a political battleground, root server
>>>"reallocation" occurred (extremely infrequently) when (a) the person
>>>to whom Jon Postel "gave" the root server changed employers or (b) the
>>>assets of the organization running the root server were acquired by
>>>another company. Today, "reallocation" of a root server would either
>>>require the existing root server operator voluntarily giving the root
>>>server IP address to a different organization or that IP address would
>>>have to be "taken" by eminent domain or somesuch.
>>>
>>>Â
>>>
>>>I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13
>>>root server operators,
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers).
>>>
>>>Â
>>>
>>>so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not
>>>physical location points.
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12
>>>organizations. Â Geography is largely irrelevant.
>>>
>>>Â
>>>
>>>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.
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>Somewhat as an aside, my understanding is that efforts to provide
>>>infrastructure (not root server infrastructure specifically albeit the
>>>same folks do provide anycast instances for a root server operator) in
>>>India were blocked by demands for bribes greater than the value of
>>>hardware being shipped into the country (see
>>><http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786>http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786).
>>>
>>>Â
>>>
>>>Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the
>>>present debate. Any answers?
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>Sure. You are assuming a top-down model that does not exist. Â There is
>>>no single entity that can dictate to the root server operators "you
>>>will give your root server to IIT". Â You and others that care about
>>>this are free to make the case to (say) Verisign that it would be in
>>>their corporate best interests for them to relocate administrative
>>>control of one of their root servers to India, but it would be up to
>>>Verisign (or perhaps more accurately, its shareholders) to make that
>>>decision.
>>>
>>>Â
>>>
>>>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.
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>No. Placement of root servers has no impact on Internet topology.
>>>Really. Distributing root server instances can be helpful in reducing
>>>root query latency and improving resiliency in the event of network
>>>disruption. That's pretty much it. Opening up the "root server
>>>allocation issue" is a red herring, particularly given pretty much
>>>anyone can get a root server instance if they care and are willing to
>>>abide by the restrictions inherent in operating a root server.
>>>
>>>Merging a subsequent note:
>>>
>>>On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote:
>>>Â
>>>
>>>' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast
>>>operator to his own anycast server.
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes. Â However, if you ask anyone familiar with computer systems, you
>>>will be told that if you have physical access to a machine, you can
>>>gain control of that machine. Â Obtaining such control would violate
>>>the terms by which the machine was granted, but that's irrelevant.
>>>
>>>Â
>>>
>>>This is a pretty centralised control, not at all the picture one got
>>>from all the technically well informed insiders who seem to suggest
>>>on this list that everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory and
>>>kind of anyone can set up and operate root servers.
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm getting the impression that you read what you prefer to read, not
>>>what is actually written. Â No one (to my knowledge) has suggested
>>>"everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory". Â Root service is
>>>considered critical infrastructure and is treated as such, so anyone
>>>asserting it is "open and uncontrolled" would be confused at best.
>>>Â Can you provide a reference to anyone making this suggestion?
>>>
>>>As for "hunky-dory", I suppose some folks would say the way the root
>>>servers are operated is "hunky-dory". Â I am not among them.
>>>
>>>Â
>>>
>>>Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister?
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes. Really.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>-drc
>>>
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Â
>>>Â
>>>
>>>Â
>>>
>>>
>>>Â
>>>
>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>Â Â Â Â Â <governance at lists.igcaucus.htm>governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>Â Â Â Â Â 
>>><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>Â Â Â Â Â 
>>><http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>Â Â Â Â Â <http://www.igcaucus.org/>http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>>Translate this email: 
>>><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120810/ce9f1448/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