[governance] [JNC - Forum] The decentralization of the DNS system

Tue Jul 7 11:28:43 EDT 2015

Dear all,
I'm sorry, but I'm not clear what is being sought to be done here.

   1. The reasons ICANN is currently is a 'monopole':
      A. In desirability terms: Most people want a system whereby two 
users don't reach two different addresses (or more accurately: two 
different address owners) when they type "example.org".
      B. In practical terms: ISPs default to recognizing 
ICANN-recognized root servers.  I recall one in India (was it Tiger?) in 
the early 2000s that offered an alternative root (an ICANN+ root, like 
OpenNIC IIRC), but that experiment didn't last very long.

   2. What Willi is proposing in the form of "community-owned spaces" is 
currently possible through an intranet, and require no new system.  An 
city-wide intranet can have the TLD ".bengaluru", for instance.  As long 
as the 1) DNS resolvers include a root zone entry for .bengaluru, and an 
entry for example.bengaluru, and 2) the community member who wishes to 
access example.bengaluru is using one such DNS resolver, that domain 
name will resolve.

      2A. For instance, you can set your DNS resolver to 
"193.182.144.144" (run by the OpenNIC project) to be able to gTLDs like 
".parody" and ".dyn" and ".gopher".  It is free.

   3. Willi's description of root zone servers is wrong.

   4. I'm not sure if JC's suggestion of Open Root refers to the Open 
Root Server Network (which is operated independent of ICANN, but mirrors 
ICANN) or OpenRoot.eu, in which I don't really see a difference from 
OpenNIC except that it sells TLDs, rather than them being given for free 
which is the case with OpenNIC, and does so on a first-come-first-serve 
basis unlike ICANN's elaborate gTLD auction process.

Regards,
Pranesh	

willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net> [2015-06-25 02:01:49 -0300]:
>
> Dear Jean-Christophe,
>
> many thanks for your answer. I will answer in the 2 lists, where we find
> the discussion to this theme.
>
> "1_ In my opinion, "decentralization" seems not to be the appropriate
> word to describe what and how to change the current monopole under ICANN."
>
> Not the "ICANN monopolisation" is the object. The centralisation of the
> DNS System and the results, the irrational structures with their
> significant restrictions, is the object.
>
> "Information Technology is somehow always related to a Master and its
> slaves, by electronic nature."
>
> This is not true. You never find a Master/Slave relation in the
> electronic by her nature. It is always a result of the design
> principles. The Master/Slave relation you find in the head of the
> people, the leaders and/or performers.
>
> "2_ ... Localisation might be interesting if a community decides to set
> up its own network (see the Spanish experiment on this) but that does
> not address the DNS issue."
>
> If you mean guifi.net, then your argumentation is not correct. They use
> also a DNS system. But her own. And also they have the gateways to the
> outside networks.
>
> You create for the community oriented space a difference to the other,
> more external, activities. But this is a construction in your head and
> have nothing to do with the reality. In all local and autonomous
> networks the people want to connect worldwide. It is not a specific
> characteristic of a non-community orientation.
>
> Some basic views.
>
> The Clients (the initiators of transactions) need the DNS system to get
> the IP address, if they do not have it, to connect to the Server. But
> this is not a static mapping. Every Host can be Client and Server. The
> practical restriction is the asymetry in the transport capacity for the
> two directions.
>
> The Servers mostly want to be accessible. Therefore, the organizers of
> the Servers create an entry in the DNS list for the Clients. And because
> the Clients do not know, where the Server is, they ask the DNS system.
> But not anywhere. They use mostly the next entry to the DNS system.
>
> We discuss here not the nature of the IP address, not the transport
> mechanism and not the routing in the branch points. Only the design
> principles for our transformation system between Number and Text of our
> IP address.
>
> The existing system is trivial. We have one list and 13 mirrored Root
> Server. 12 in USA, 1 in Europe. Since some years, ICANN started to order
> Verisign to create more mirror servers in the different regions on our
> planet. For the shortest access they use the Anycast addressing scheme.
> But this system remains centrally organized. It is only an internal
> mirroring.
>
> The object is the list and not the mirroring system. And it is clear,
> that with gTLDs (generic TLD) you never can decentralize the system. You
> lost the base for decentralizing. The gTLDs are always global. Then you
> can propagate another organisation. And then you have the same shit with
> another name.
>
> Tarakiyee wrote on the JNC-Forum-list:
> "A truly decentralized system would allow individuals to register their
> domains without going through intermediaries. This by all means is not
> a trivial or simple proposal, especially if to be implemented
> globally, but it is possible. ..."
> In the first part the capability for individual create, edit and
> dissolve the entry in the list. Yes, absolutely. In the second part i do
> not understand, what he mean. If you want this to organize for gTLDs,
> then of course, you get big problems to do it.
>
> I do not know, how today the interaction for the ccTLD Server structure
> and her subservers are organized. It is not necessary to know the
> internal structure. The people in this region (country) have to organize
> this.
>
> But it is clear, then we have as a minimum 192(193) lists. And if the
> people in his region organized her DNS systems strong decentralised,
> then they have internal more then one list.
>
> For the people outside of any country region it is not a problem. And
> the people inside know the structure, because they organized it.
>
> To the restriction.
>
> Clear, it is dependent of our perspectives and vision. Therefore, i can
> only speak based on that. Every community, small or big, create her
> autonomous network with at least one Server. But also every school,
> department of university, any part of a city, every activity group of
> people create her own Server. And, based of the will of the people,
> every host in a private home with a statical connection to the internet
> can act permanently as a server. And client, of course.
>
> This means, without decentralisation we never can organize a fluent
> system. You can count on our planet the community and their parts, the
> schools, the universities and their parts, all groups of people with a
> static activity center, all the home hosts. Then you understand the
> restrictions.
>
> And with gTLDs? If you want to use this nonsens, create a competition
> arena, where nobody know for what, organize any fighting for the ".ngo"
> gTLD or any other. What is that? I know, this is not an intelligent way.
>
> You do not trust the government in Switzerland? Ok. Then you have to
> organize the open discussion in Switzerland for a free and gratis ".ch"
> domain in your region. Self organizable for all server administrators in
> Switzerland. Public, state and private. The people there are not more
> stupid like we. They understand it very fast.
>
> Why you focus your eyes to the global level? You do not like the people
> in Switzerland, in your region, in your village? Of course, we need this
> discussion spaces in the global space. We have many people worldwide
> with fantastic ideas and experience. But practical doing? We do it locally.
>
> Summary.
>
> That we can get the IP address from any server on our planet, we need
> 192(193) IP-addresses for the ccTLD Root servers. Not much, or? From
> there, it is a internal task.
>
> But also, it is not necessary for us as clients to know this IP
> addresses. We call our local DNS server. This is the entry for us to our
> decentralized gloabal DNS system.
>
> many greetings for you and all, willi
> Porto Alegre, Brasil
>
>
> Am 20/06/2015 um 02:02 schrieb Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
> Journal:
>> Willi,
>>
>> Thanks for sharing your thoughts. If I may put two comments on this.
>>
>> 1_
>> In my opinion, "decentralization" seems not to be the appropriate word
>> to describe what and how to change the current monopole under ICANN.
>> Information Technology is somehow always related to a Master and its
>> slaves, by electronic nature.
>>
>> 2_
>> Localisation is often associated with the idea of "nation". Keep in
>> mind that this could mean to imprison people into old boundaries.
>> Localisation might be interesting if a community decides to set up its
>> own network (see the Spanish experiment on this) but that does not
>> address the DNS issue.
>>
>> In other words, decentralization has been a buzz word propagated by
>> the current owners/rulers of the DNS root zoot management. And
>> basically it is part of the dominant narrative related to the
>> so-called, open, free, decentralized Internet under US/allies ruling
>> boot. Localisation might equate to a returning in the past, pushing us
>> back within the boundaries of the old national thinking. Not sure if
>> we really want this.
>>
>> What is more needed is either a global common governance (option one),
>> with a public interest perspective, or a competitive market. Were we
>> not satisfied with the ICANN, we should turn to another root-zone
>> manager. This is no dream or utopia. I am no longer sending my domain
>> name request to an ICANN affiliate server, but instead using the
>> Open-Root system to find whatever I am looking for on the web. Thanks
>> to Open-Root, we are also providing for free one domain name with a
>> gTLD managed by Open-Root to NGOs. When the new gTLD .ngo by PIR
>> (Public INterest Registry) given by ICANN to ISOC (PIR is ISOC's TLD
>> roommate and milk cow) is an additional business supposed to make more
>> money, we are happy to provide access to IPs through an independent,
>> cheap (for free, or paid for life) domain name. All our computers are
>> using Open-Root DNS management to access website that ICANN et al
>> cannot see if we do not want the US surveillance apparatus to see it.
>>
>> The first option (Global Common Governance) is almost dead, thanks to
>> the systematic blockade by the US (gov and businesses) and its usual
>> allies. Moreover, this first option would require both an
>> architectural re-thinking (see JFC's email) and a political and
>> institutional framing (see JNC for its democratic approach of the
>> Internet governance). A long way to go. You show note that the request
>> for a roadmap to a new Internet Governance, as put before the Net
>> Mundial Conference has gone no where expect into giving to ICANN more
>> power over the IANA functions (shifting power from the US to the US).
>>
>> The second option is fair competition (which I like as it means ending
>> the de facto ICANN monopole) and we are free to practice competition
>> it at any time starting today.
>>
>> A third option is an old fashion scheme that would fragment the
>> Internet into national sub-Internets, (Westphalian Internets). This is
>> not just old-fashion. This would be a way to imprison people back into
>> their country land under the control of their leaders (good luck with
>> that), unless the current efforts by a few academics come to
>> conclusion in order to interconnect different root-zone management
>> systems. There are a few bright minds working on this
>> interconnectivity, whether the roots would be national or global.
>>
>> For anyone interested to use the OPEN ROOT to browse the web, and
>> break free from the ICANN affiliates, feel free to write to me for
>> guidance and information.
>>
>> JC
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum mailing list
> Forum at justnetcoalition.org
> http://mail.justnetcoalition.org/listinfo/forum

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
twitter:https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150707/8d2dbdf4/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