| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
RIPE Ready to Anycast Too
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 5 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
>In other words, nobody has really answered the question
>posed by Jon Postel's test from several years ago:
>Who is really in charge?
That's one interpretation of Jon's test, but one that is not supported by the discussion at the time (when Jon was alive and could respond). A different interpretation, one that Jon talked about often, is "can the root servers do something differently if they need to?"
Jon was big on operations. The "test" was an check on the operational stability of the root. You can read lots into the test (as Karl and others), but you can also look at it as just plain operational prudence.
There is no test for "who is really in charge". That changes from moment to moment, from situation to situation.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Re:Root server operator independence
by phoffman@proper.com
|
| Starting Score: |
2 |
points |
| Extra 'Interesting' Modifier |
|
0 |
|
| Total Score: |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure that we are saying different things.
I agree, it is prudent to test that root servers (and the procedures used to operate them) will work should there is reason to get a copy of a root zone from a different place than normal. That was my interpretation of what Jon did and I thought then, and I think now, that such a test was warranted and proper.
But the question that I am asking is who has the ultimate authority to decide whether to hold such a test or, more importantly, to decide whether a situation has evolved to the degree that the tested procedure is to be put into real practice?
If really bad things were to happen and root server operators (individually or as a group) felt that a change should be made, and be made immediately, would they feel that they had to ask for outside approval or would they feel safe in acting on their own? Might they refrain from doing what needs to be done because they feel a chill of uncertainty about whether they have the final authority?
Do ICANN and the Dept of Commerce believe that they are "in charge" of the root servers in the same way that a person may think that he/she is "in charge" of a herd of cats just because they fortuitiously happen to be walking in the same direction?
If so, then two things need to be done:
First, the non-authoritative position of ICANN/Dept of Commerce should be clearly enunciated by all concerned.
Second, the question of the precise scope of the root server operator's role needs to be raised. This question necessarily involves asking about means to ensure that the root server operators remain within that scope. This question also necessarily involves asking about the performance of those jobs that are placed outside of that scope - such as perhaps the decision as to who operates a ccTLD or even the broader question of who gets to decide what is in the root zone file that the root operators might commit themselves to use no matter how dire the circumstances.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
