RE: [ga] DNSO ICANN board member

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

Simon,

>>
>>How would you call a root that does not use the ICANN root as 
baseline?
>
>I'd call it a "Private Root" since it does not reflect the publicly 
>viewable internet name space (anything less than the ICANN baseline is 
a 
>private name space). It would not be an "Alternative Root" (alt.root) 
to 
>the "IANA/ICANN root" in the publicaly-viewable sense.
>
>>(BTW, I assume that you cannot make sure that an alternate root does 
not
>>  point to different name servers for the TLDs that are also in 
ICANN's
>>root)
>
>While it's possible, what incentive is there at the end user level to 
use a 
>zone missing any TLDs? Maybe an organization can set it's DNS servers 
up to 
>boycott a ccTLD (think about protesting .ZA during Apartheid), but it's
 
>localized to those organizations end users, and can easily be 
circumvented 
>by anyone knowledgeable.
>
>Thinking about it some more, there's an inherent trust given to all DNS
 
>server operators by the end users served. There's nothing stopping the 
glue 
>records for any domain name or TLD from being changed on any server 
>anywhere on the planet. You can do this at any level - it is not 
restricted 
>to root servers.


The main thing I am worried about is that two alt.roots have different 
name servers for the same TLD.

And this I don't like.


>
>We all saw what John Postel and Paul Vixie (at John Gilmore's 
prompting) 
>did a couple of years ago in splitting the root servers up into US 
>Gov-controlled and non-USG-controlled groups by changing the 
>non-USG-controlled root servers to pull their root zone from an IANA 
server 
>instead of a.root. What they actually did was attempt to create an 
alt.root 
>out of the non-USG-controlled root servers. Had no-one noticed the 
change 
>of root authority then the 7 CORE TLDs would have been added to half 
the 
>root servers and the root would have been fragmented from that point 
on. As 
>a POC member you were supposed to oversee and prevent this from 
happening. 
>Instead the USG intervened.
>

First of all, the intention was not at all to fragment the root and to 
start an alt.root.
As for the overseeing role of POC, I will not argue, just notice that I 
was not a POC member at that time.
For the record, I spoke against the "experiment" at the CORE Assembly in
 Washington, DC, that was ongoing when the events happened. I assume I 
would have had the same attitude in POC ;>).

Regards
Roberto
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html