Re: [icann-europe] European RootServer System

["Andy Duff" <andy@new.net>]

I think the point Marc was making was to try and establish _why_ everyone
keeps on saying that New.net is "destabilising the Internet". or "one of the
worst offenders". Otherwise we are dealing with assertions like the one in
that rather wonderful Southpark episode where the teacher stands up and says
"Drugs 'r Baaaad, M'kay? 'cause they're bad, m'kay? Alcohol's bad, m'kay?
M'kay?"

I suggest the best option is to ignore New.net right now and concentrate on
trying to fix a messy system of DNS governance which has resulted in
companies like New.net coming into existence to satisfy a perceived market
demand. New.net is about TLDs, and not really anything directly to do with
Root servers.

Perhaps we should get back to the topic in hand, which is Jefsey's initial
question as to whether there is interest in (or a desire for) a European
root server system. It would be good to have a rational discussion of this
on this list. Marc is absolutely correct that this would really be a very
simple thing to achieve in theory (changing a tiny file in the nameservers).
However, whether it is a) desirable or b) necessary is a very different
question.

To answer that question requires a proper analysis of whether a European
Root Server system would add any value to the (European) users of the
Internet. Here there are really two issues. One is a security issue (i.e.
will it enhance the reliability and stability of the Internet for European
Users) and the other is a question of semantic "control" over the Internet's
naming system (which many others feel is too much embedded within ICANN and
USG control of the legacy root at the moment). Any thoughts on these two
issues? I know very little on the first, and think the second is important,
but way bigger (and smaller) than just the European context. Bigger as in
Asia-pacific and the issue of ML domain names in completely different
character sets, and smaller in that there are obviously numerous language
communities based in Europe which might have different semantic requirements
and desires in terms of the DNS (and more specifically TLDs).

As some context, I'd like to raise some facts and some opinions -

1. The fact is that the USG maintains control over the legacy root at
present. Although they say they wish to hand control over to ICANN, they
have stalled on this a number of times now (not without reason, considering
the way that ICANN has turned out).

2. It is my belief that the US will not give up control of the legacy root
for at last the next 5 years and possibly never. There are a number of
reasons for this, ranging from the increasingly control-oriented language
being heard on Capitol Hill through to the fact that the USG would never
risk it's reputation by giving the control of the root to an organisation
that so clearly has not performed as hoped (which of course even Dr Lynn now
acknowledges).

3. The date of 30 September is looming. This is the date of the renewal of
the MoU between the USG and ICANN. There seems little doubt that the
attempts to reform ICANN now are an attempt to get the organisation into
shape prior to that date so that the MoU can be renewed. It is of course
entirely possible that the MoU will not be renewed, but will only be
"extended" for a period. (I actually think this is most likely).

4. As the userbase of the Internet becomes more global in make-up, the
pressures of national interest become greater, and the idealised concept of
a privatised policy making function for the DNS based in California becomes
less realistic. The nascent attempts at creating different root systems are
proof enough of this already.

In light of these points, I do think it is pertinent and sensible to at
least explore this issue, not because multiple technical roots are
necessarily desirable, but because they may (particularly in the long term)
be the most pragmatic and secure way of ensuring interoperability of naming
systems.  I know that is the perspective of the ITU which is concerned with
the pragmatic operation of technical systems within the real world
constraints of national interests.

andy duff



-----Original Message-----
From: Christoph [mailto:wefa2@gmx.de]
Sent: 23 April 2002 01:07
To: icann-europe@lists.fitug.de
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [icann-europe] Re: [ecdiscuss] Re: [icann-europe]
European RootServer System]


[forwarded to list]

Hi,

Florian Weimer wrote:
> Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org> writes:
> > On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, at 13:56 [=GMT+0100], Steve Dyer wrote:
> >
> >> And let's not encourage those who try to profit from destabilising an
> >> Internet that works pretty well at present.
> >
> > Who are they? I am curious.
>
> New.net and its ISP partners

Yep. One of the worst offenders.

> In addition, New.net DNS is activated automatically on Windows
> machines if you install certain Windows programs (BearShare, KaZaA,

Sure ? I've had KaZaa on one of my machines briefly a few months ago, and
had it checked by AdAware - it didn't report this...

Any Idea how I can determine the presence of their plug in ?

Regards

Christoph Weber-Fahr

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: icann-europe-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: icann-europe-help@lists.fitug.de



-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: icann-europe-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: icann-europe-help@lists.fitug.de