Re: [icann-europe] European RootServer System

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Andy,
On 15:05 23/04/02, Andy Duff said:
>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).

three is national security.
four is access and know how about the DNS software system. M$ 200 by 
Verisign and probably the same by MS will certainly extend a system which 
has not really changed for 20 years.

<snip>
>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).

They control both the legacy (Jon Postel's "private" net) and "govnet" 
(mil/gov/edu/us).

>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).

Question is: will they permit any USG root server to stay outside of the USA?

>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).

Agree.

>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.

Another issue is : why do we need any real time root server system? Are 
there some other architectures? What are the solution for the routing 
tables? Are there some mixed solutions?
What are the directories and value added issues for the root?

What are the applications' architcture we might be lead to accept which 
could confort the RSS architecture?

>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.

Agree.

Jefsey


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