[governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance

[David Conrad]

Jovan,

On Dec 9, 2013, at 7:07 AM, Jovan Kurbalija <jovank at diplomacy.edu> wrote:
> David clarified that ICANN does not host the root server.


To clarify my clarification (:)):

ICANN operates the "Whois" database for the root.  However that database is not particularly an operational concern (yes, it would be annoying if you couldn't look up the contact information for the administrators for a TLD, but it wouldn't have immediate operational impact). Verisign operates the root zone database.  This database is probably what most people consider to be "the root server".

> The US 'deletion’ move is almost as improbable as the chance that the Higgs Boson experiment in CERN will create anti-matter field which can siphon the Earth through a black hole.

An interesting thought experiment would be what would happen if the UN asked (and the US government complied) with such a request. Assuming both ICANN and Verisign abided by the US government request:

First, the root server operators would need to accept the removal.  They ultimately control the DNS data they serve. If they do nothing special, they will serve the updated zone. If the change removing the TLD was initiated using the regular process (that is, through the IANA), I suspect there would be a high likelihood most if not all of the root servers would comply.  However, if the change came outside of normal processes (which is almost certainly the case since the normal process would require the country in question to agree to be removed), I believe at least some of the root servers would refuse to accept the modified zone.

But let's assume the root servers accepted the change.  Next, the world's resolver operators would need to accept the removal. If they disagreed and were sufficiently motivated, there are a variety of mechanisms by which they could choose to serve the unmodified zone.  It is important to note that since DNSSEC validation is typically done at the resolver, DNSSEC protections do not necessarily apply.

The implication of all of this is that any action to remove a TLD without general agreement/acceptance of the root server operators and resolver operators (who are generally every ISP in the world), will likely result in a reasonable facsimile of chaos, a fracturing of the "One Internet", and, more to the point, unlikely to be particularly successful. This is why I've never really thought this was a realistic scenario, particularly given we're talking about _names_ that make it easy for people to get to the resources, not the resources in question.  It would be like removing <insert bad person's name> from the telephone directory as opposed to canceling their credit cards or arresting them. 


Regards,
-drc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131209/7657ee54/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131209/7657ee54/attachment.sig>
-------------- 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