In message <a123a5d60911060930i691985f0re23a12155dc38c68@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Phill ip Hallam-Baker writes: > On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Steve Crocker <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. =A0ICANN'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 off= > ers > >> them. =A0It'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. =A0Far from it. =A0As 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. No, it wouldn't. ISP's would just graft Cuba back onto the net. It requires a little reconfiguration to add a trust anchor for Cuba as well as the root but the world would route around such idiocy. This would be a little like SiteFinder. There would be a short disruption until the world routes around the idiocy. If new code is needed it would appear at about the same rate anti SiteFinder code appeared (read overnight). > 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. =A0But the IETF needs to get organized enoug= > h 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. =A0The IETF situation was already discussed in deta= > il. > > 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@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf