Re: [ga] Re: ICANN before the US Senate...

["L. Gallegos" <jandl@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 6 Aug 2003 at 13:29, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:39:18PM -0400,
>  L. Gallegos <jandl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote 
<snip>
> 
> If IANA stays with purely technical jobs (adding or removing a
> nameserver for an existing TLD, adding a protocol number for a new TCP
> service, etc), I agree with you.
> 
> But how do you handle non-technical decisions? A few different
> examples:
> 
> 1) Who will decide of the redelegation of a ccTLD? Especially in
> complicated cases like a fight between two local groups? This is not a
> clerical process, it is a political one, by essence.

If an existing manager is doing its job, there would be no change.  A 
local fight doesn't change the rules.  If a government nationalizes 
private industry and takes over businesses, there is little or no choice 
since governments may do this whether we like it or not.  At that point, 
the "local group" no longer exists and the government prevails.  It is 
IANA's job to make sure correct operating nameservers show up in the root 
as designated by the manager of record.  Redelegation is a matter of the 
current manager relinquishing the ccTLD to another.  Absent that consent, 
it doesn't happen unless a government literally "takes" it by force or it 
is proven that the ccTLD is not operating or serving its community - i.e., 
domains are not assigned, nameservers not working...

IANA's guidelines have to be well defined, but under those guidelines it 
can be a-political.  IANA was designed to be a-political.  It should 
remain so.  ICANN has politicized the DNS.

I would refer to Karl Auerbachs comments on the IANA function.

> 
> 2) Who will decide what gTLD to create? (I use ORSC at home and *some*
> new.net dummy domains are integrated in ORSC root, some are not: on what
> grounds? It is a political decision. May be a proper one but certainly not
> purely technical.)

Pretty simple, really.  Pre-existing TLDs prevail unless there is 
agreement among managers to the contrary or an abandoment of the TLD.  No 
root should do what ICANN did - duplicating an existing TLD and causing 
disenfranchisement of domain name holders and causing massive instability. 
 In actuality, it is a technical decision more than a political one, as 
well as using established guidelines.  To my knowledge, ORSC made 
decisions based on whether New.Net had agreements with prior managers 
and/or whether the TLD was in operation.  I am not involved with root 
decisions, so I cannot state their policy.  However, it is not a 
policitcal decision - just a technical one. There can be only one instance 
of a TLD in the roots using identical nameservers for that TLD.  The goal 
of the root managers has always been to accomplish this.

New.net TLDs are not dummy domains.  They function in the same way as any 
other but have addititional features to allow those not using their root 
to access them.  Calling them dummy domains is incorrect.  I may not agree 
with their methods (and do not), but they are technically operational, 
fully functional TLDs.

ICANN doesn't use any established guidelines and ignores the fundamental 
FCFS, the preferences of the public or consensus.  For instance, .WEB 
should have been placed in the root without question.  To have ICANN 
decide anything in the IANA function is to say it will all be politicized 
according to the desires of a special few.

Once guidelines really are established, it is not that difficult to follow 
them.  However, I don't think ICANN should be making those decisions 
unless it becomes a-political itself.  Thus far, it has demonstrated an 
unwillingness to perform the IANA function without using political 
blackmail.

Creation of a gTLD isn't rocket science either.  Set the technical 
guidelines and if the applicant conforms, it's in the root.  That's pretty 
simple.  Success or failure is a market decision, not a political one.  
Some business models will fail.  Some will be wildly successful.  Some 
will offer domains at minimal cost or be subsidized, while others will be 
purely commercial businesses.  That provides choice.  It should have 
nothing to do with ICANN other than the capacity of the servers to handle 
the traffic and be secure.

So far, ICANN has shown it does not have the capacity to handle this task 
at all.  

> 
> 3) Who will decide to recognize (or not) Afrinic as a new RIR?
> Especially if they do not agree with the rules that were defined for
> the rich countries (such as the minimum allocation criteria)?
> 
> [Do note that you can have systems where three different organizations
> decide for these three issues, it only requires a clear delineation of
> their powers.]

That is a separate function and a critical one.  If an RIR is to be added, 
I think it should be with the cooperation of the other  RIR's, which have 
done a good job thus far.  If allocation criteria needs to change, this 
should also be with agreement by all the RIR's and using a formula that 
will best serve the user population.  There should be no political 
leverage used.

> 
> Face it: you need a political instance. Now, we can flame each other
> about wether USG, ITU, ORSC or something else is the proper one :-)
> But let's stop that "Stick with technical matters" b...t.
> 

I simply do not agree.  At the very least, allowing politics to enter into 
the function creates the supranational, social dictatorship that ICANN has 
become.  If ICANN had simply acted as a coordinator to bring the different 
functions together so that they could be organized, it would have worked.  
Instead, it became a social engineer.  This is what has ruined its 
potential legitimacy.  Quite frankly, I would like to see what would 
happen if the USG root suddenly included all currently operational TLDs, 
thus eliminating the political issues.  

With some ten thousand TLDs, there would be a major shift in the monetary 
value of a single domain - downward, the elimination of fighting over IP 
rights (which has no place in the DNS) and rendering politics surrounding 
TLDs obsolete. Indexing would become strictly a function of search 
engines, as is occurring now.  It would be a really good test (not that 
one is needed). 

 At that point, I believe all the roots would come into play and also 
eliminate the potential for a single point of failure of the root system, 
since there would be a choice of systems without concern over who carried 
what TLDs. A DOS attack or crack would then have to be carried out on 
hundreds of servers rather than just 13.  They all carry the USG root's 
TLDs anyway, as a courtesy and to maintain consistency in the DNS.  Many 
also use different operating systems and DNS servers, making the 
probablility of any single form of attack unlikely.  The distribution of 
servers is also wider.

The bottom line is that it is really a technical issue, not a political 
one - or should be.

I happen to use ORSC on one workstation and PacificRoot on others and on 
servers. My home PC uses whichever one I decide to use at any given moment 
- just a choice I have.  I have had no interruption of internet access in 
the years I've used those roots, but if there were an issue with a DNS 
server or one or other of the roots, I could elect to change at a moment's 
notice.  I've done this periodically just to see how well it would work 
and produced no DNS issues at all.  The USG root system could fall apart 
and I would still have the internet as long as the TLD servers were still 
operational.

The only interruption I have ever seen in the DNS (while using the two 
roots) was the attack on Cisco routers or other regional routing failures. 
 It had nothing to do with the root systems.

Just for the record, I am not all that technically astute. I have some 
basic knowledge, skills and understanding.  If I can do this, anyone can.

Regards,

Leah
>