[governance] Root Server

[Louis Pouzin (well)]

Hi,

The worldwide cell phone system, including China, uses more than 1500 roots
(aka HLR), one with each cell operator. Subscribers (7 billions) are more
than twice those of internet. And they are mobile. The basic function is
the same, converting a character string to an infrastructure ID.

Isn't the DNS the most gigantic *D*i*N*o*S*aur ever known ?
Are there political problems with HLRs ?
Nope. It just works. Any questions ?

Louis
- - -

On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:19 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

>
> David
>
> Thanks for your response.
>
> Your whole argument below depends on making a clean distinction between
> scenario 1: all root servers acting as one - the root server community, and
> scenario 2;  one root server operator  takes a defiant stand. But neither
> does this clean distinction hold in reality, nor is it valid vis a vis our
> earlier discussion, which clearly brought up the scenario where some root
> server operators (US gov controlled ones, and next, US located ones) will
> - or will *have to* - act one way,  and the other root operators then
> having to look at their options -  to follow suit, or split the root.
>
> In terms of the existing situation, which was the subject of our earlier
> discussions:
>
> We know that it is only the US gov that can today make a 'problematic'
> change in the root. It should be obvious that when US gov does it, the root
> servers owned by the US gov will follow suit. Next, it is extremely
> unlikely that any such 'problematic change' will be made without some kind
> of legal backing, whether of the foreign assets regulation kind or one
> about alleged intellectual property violation. In either case, or other
> possible similar ones, all US based root serves (10 out of the total of 13)
> will have to comply and follow the changes made by the US gov in the
> authoritative file. That leaves the 3 non US root server operators... With
> the DNNSEC in operation (and I have always contended, even otherwise) they
> do not have much of an option.
>
> Now, in terms of a possible extension of the number of root servers (to 20
> or more), which possibility triggered this discussion:
>
> Considering that many if not most of these new root servers may go to
> developing countries, in the same way that there are strong developed
> country alliances, it is very likely that an operator in India will have
> agreement with another in Ghana and  a third one in Argentina to stick out
> against any effort by the US to unilaterally enforce its law and/ or
> standards on the world.
>
> Therefore, in either case, a neat distinction - between all root file
> operators acting as one, on one hand, and just one trying to go its own
> way, on the other - does not obtains, and is not valid. And it is such an
> imagined neat distinction that is the sole basis of your argument.
>
> parminder
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140726/ee0fd133/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