Re: [ga] Sponsorship of IGF Workshops

[Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hugh Dierker wrote:

> Go slow for me. I assume that the root server traffic analysis has 
> been asked for by someone. What is the suggested reason for refusing 
> to make it public?


The only one I ever remember being published was the one from CAIDA.  I 
wrote on it:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/05/dud_queries_swamp_us_internet/

After that article I have never again seen an analysis of root server 
traffic.  I asked for the data and Paul Vxie back then refused to 
provide it to the public claiming possible privacy violations.

The reason why root server data and analysis is not made public is 
because it show how much technical harm has been done or is being done 
to the technical infrastructure icann as sworn to protect.  The article 
tells you that back in 2003 98 percent of the queries to the root 
servers were errors.  This is not altogether true.  Many of these errors 
are as a result of the rapid expansion of other namespaces - i.e. like 
the chinese government MII, the arab consortium - etc etc.

I would not be surprised if a majority of the queries were to chinese 
IDNs run by the chinese government.  I suspect the chinese wth the 
launch of their national tlds and the conversion of the china network to 
national IDNs I suspect the chinese traffic would now make up the bulk 
of the volumn in DNS queries to the ICANN root.

A proper analysis also makes them look like fools.  Since it shows that 
as the US government has tried to control the internet - the internet 
has fragemented and the proof is in the traffic error rate.

ICANN is proof that the USG experimet has failed.  This brings up the 
question - should we develop a root integration experiment and have that 
replace icann.

You see the problem here.  This data clearly shows that as icann as 
played fun and games pretending to run the internet, the internet has 
ended up causing them over 98 % error rate and those errors represent 
alot of internet roo fragmentation.  And that is a violation of the IAB 
Policy on the Unique root.

I still remember the silly claims they had at icann many years ago.  
They were grinding the propaganda mill telling the world they had a 
monopoly on root services.  The alternative root experiments proved that 
a farce.

Check in to it - see if you can find any public analysis available.  
CAIDA should be able to provide you with a copy of the analysis.

cheers
joe baptista

>  
> Eric
>
> */Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>/* wrote:
>
>     Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
>     > Even if ICANN were to vanish in a poof of money colored smoke IP
>     > packets would still flow unvexed from source IP address to
>     destination
>     > IP address and domain name query packets would continue to be
>     > transformed into domain name response packets. Registrars would
>     still
>     > buy and sell domain names and registrars would still construct zone
>     > files and run their name servers. Intellectual property lawyers
>     will
>     > whine, but will compensate by increasing the bills they send to
>     their
>     > clients. And a lot of superfluous "staff" and consultants would
>     have
>     > to find new jobs.
>
>     Amen. That day is coming.
>
>     I would go further and say that ICANN has actually cause problems
>     in the
>     technical function. I'm a bit concerned with their little
>     experiment in
>     list IDN TLDs as A RRs.
>
>     Also speaking about TLDs as A RRs, what about localhost. That TLD
>     causes alot of traffic at the root server level.
>      
>     And if ICANN published it's root server traffic analysis we would
>     see that.
>      
>     Every computer in
>     the world knows the answer to localhost. The only localhost traffic
>     that is hitting ICANN roots these days is coming from misconfigured
>     computers. If ICANN provided an answer to localhost then would
>     that not
>     be better. Would te internet not benefit from a decrease in localhost
>     traffic to the root servers.
>
>     Part of the function of managing internet resources is to correct
>     error.
>
>     regards
>     joe baptista
>
>     -- 
>     Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org
>     PublicRoot Consortium
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------
>     The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive,
>     Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large.
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------
>     Office: +1 (202) 517-1593
>     Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
>
>     begin:vcard
>     fn:Joe Baptista
>     n:Baptista;Joe
>     org:PublicRoot Consortium
>     adr:;;963 Ford Street;Peterborough;Ontario;K9J 5V5 ;Canada
>     email;internet:baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>     title:PublicRoot Representative
>     tel;fax:+1 (509) 479-0084
>     tel;cell:+1 (416) 912-6551
>     x-mozilla-html:FALSE
>     url:http://www.publicroot.org
>     version:2.1
>     end:vcard
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48256/*http://travel.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFhN2hucjlpBF9TAzk3NDA3NTg5BHBvcwM1BHNlYwNncm91cHMEc2xrA2VtYWlsLW5jbQ-->on 
> Yahoo! Travel. 



--
Joe Baptista                                www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive,
Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
 Office: +1 (202) 517-1593
    Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084

begin:vcard
fn:Joe Baptista
n:Baptista;Joe
org:PublicRoot Consortium
adr:;;963 Ford Street;Peterborough;Ontario;K9J 5V5 ;Canada
email;internet:baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
title:PublicRoot Representative
tel;fax:+1 (509) 479-0084 
tel;cell:+1 (416) 912-6551
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.publicroot.org
version:2.1
end:vcard