On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Steve Crocker <steve(_at_)shinkuro(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Nov 5, 2009, at 11:30 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
This is multiple pieces of nonsense:
I actually don't think we have any serious disagreement here. ICANN's
management of the root zone is cautious for all sorts of reasons, and as you
note the root server operators have no plans to say no to what ICANN offers
them. It's always been clear that one reason is that the consequences if
any of the root servers felt unable or unwilling to accept ICANN's root
would be too awful to contemplate, so it'll never happen.
No, it's not too awful to contemplate. Far from it. As a matter of prudent
planning, consideration of the consequences of a root operator refusing to
update the root zone is definitely something that ought to be part of
contingency and disaster planning.
So a contingency that a few posts ago you dismissed as 'nonsense' now
turns out to be something that does require extensive consideration.
But I note that you are actually discussing a different contingency,
the consequences of a single default. Clearly the root operators are
responsible to and accountable to the Internet community. I would
expect that a default by a single root operator would be dealt with by
ISPs redirecting packets sent to that IP address block to a different
root. It is not that hard, it is merely a matter of the BGP cabal
deciding that the expectations of the Internet community are not being
met and adjusting accordingly.
But that was not the scenario at issue. The scenario at issue was the
case that it is ICANN that is considered to be in default. That is not
going to happen because the consequence would be the end of ICANN.
Some of the root operators would back the ICANN line of course,
perhaps they all would. But if some part of the US government was to
decide to abuse the degree of control it has over ICANN, other
governments would respond in the same fashion and order their domestic
ISPs to redirect traffic away to approved roots.
The consequences for the Internet would be rather small. I doubt that
there would be much disruption of Internet service. But the diplomatic
dislocation would be huge and ICANN would be utterly broken in the
process.
The essential weakness of ICANN's position was recognized very early
on, before the organization was founded in fact. And that is why it
was tolerated in its current form. DNSSEC with a single root of trust
would transform it from constitutional monarch to absolute monarch.
Having people respond to such concerns by saying 'trust me, you are
paranoid' is not the way to win friends and influence people. As you
admit in your own posts, the national security issue has been raised
with you by the sovereign powers directly. Who do you think you are to
dismiss those concerns as delusions?
But to return to the original issue, ICANN has plenty of money if they
wanted to support the IETF. But the IETF needs to get organized enough to
ask in a way to which you and the rest of the board can say yes.
You've just changed the subject from support for the root operators to
support for the IETF. The IETF situation was already discussed in detail.
And that topic was avoided as well, which is hardly surprising.
ICANN has already conceded the principle of supporting the IETF
through the highly conflicted award of the .org contract to a group
including ISOC. That is not a transparent or accountable mechanism. It
sets up a whole series of conflicts of interest for the ICANN and ISOC
boards.
It would be much better to simply give the money in the form of a
grant. Giving money to the IETF and W3C would provide a political
support base that ICANN desperately needs. It would also be justified
on the basis that ICANN exists to further the development of the
Internet and that ICANN revenues are driven by increased use of open
Internet protocols.
--
New Website: http://hallambaker.com/
View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week,
http://quantumofstupid.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf