ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Anonymous ICANNwatch Messages Considered Harmful? | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 65 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re:By Paul Vixie | Posted on May 20, 2004
    by KarlAuerbach on Saturday June 05 2004, @02:09PM (#13700)
    User #3243 Info | http://www.cavebear.com/
    It's pretty much standard language out of ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, LACNIC and ICANN that IP addresses (and the blocks that hold them) are not owned. Of course that's merely an assertion.

    But I have rarely heard anyone claim that an IP address is required to be unique and that folks are legally prevented from creating local instances of an address. It is an axiom of faith that the acceptance of routing information is purely voluntary, the fact that packets reach your block is merely an aspect of that voluntary acceptance of routing information by most, if not all, ISPs and not a necessary result of the allocation of a netblock to you.

    What I hear you claiming is that anyone who sets up a DNS server at the f-root address is somehow engaged in a legally actionable misrepresentation. If so, who is being harmed, the user or the f-root "owner"? And what is that nature of that harm?

    You claim it is an "unlawful communications intercept" to have a local instance of the f-root server address? That is a rather bold assertion that makes many assumptions. The first is that somehow the packet was intended for the f-root server as opposed to simply one of a class of fungible servers that offer authoritative answers to root zone queries. The second is that it is an "intercept", much less that it is "unlawful" (which of course raises the question of "under the laws of what jurisdiction?")

    The root servers are a wonderful service - and I thank you for your contribution. But your claim of ownership is quite a reach. And as a member of the internet community, the apparent lack of information regarding the financial condition underlying the continued operation of the f-root group is troublesome (it would be useful for you to post the IRS 990s, which are, public documents.)

    Your claim that there shall be no DNS service on 192.5.5.241 except yours strikes me as a landgrab not much different than Versign's Sitefinder - it is an assertion of private power over a privileged spot in the internet infrastructure.

    What you are claiming is that internet users are not to be allowed to route around your service. You are the beneficiary of a conjunction of voluntary routing decisions. You seem to now be demanding that such decisions are no longer voluntary but must be coerced in your favor. That is something that I do not accept as a good thing for the internet nor do I see any legal throries that would support such a claim.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:By Paul Vixie | Posted on May 20, 2004 by KarlAuerbach
    Starting Score:    2  points
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   3  
    a local instance of the f-root server address?
    by Anonymous on Saturday June 05 2004, @06:03PM (#13703)
    It gets better. It is now standard operating procedure to run what some call two-faced DNS. The legacy root server addresses are pulled *inside* of a site's fire-wall, and no traffic flows to Paul Trixie's duplicated (any-casted) servers, which he of course makes boat loads of money from, supporting them around the world.

    Any claims that Paul makes about traffic to and from his servers is bogus, because tens of thousands of instances of those server addresses, operating on local sub-nets, locally-route the traffic for better, more reliable, operations. ICANN always claims to be interested in more secure and stable operations, what better way than to know that one's root traffic never leaves their physical site.

    Going one step further, the sub-nets that the legacy root servers use are largely wasted with only one lone IP address in use from large blocks. That makes those sub-nets useful for local DHCP allocations. Scripts are commonly available which discover the legacy root servers and then dynamically write the DHCP config file to allow other machines to grab an open IP address from what amount to site-local blocks. By changing the number of root servers and the sub-nets they use, an external provider can provide the information to auto-configure a complete site. For PC novices here, you may see this in your Network Control Panel as "Obtain IP Address Automatically".

    It is truely ironic that Paul Trixie has made mega-millions from the BIND and DHCP software and it is that software which can be easily configured to render his beloved f-troop servers useless.

    Beyond the above, Paul is of course not looking at the usage of an IP address surrounded by other prefix and/or suffix address bits, as one sees with IPv6. It will be interesting to see if Paul claims that he owns all addresses with the f-troop 32-bit pattern anywhere in the larger bit field. He could be chasing billions of bit patterns in use around the world.

    Speaking of chasing, Paul has announced on the IETF list that he will open an office in any locale just for the purpose of filing a lawsuit against anyone who uses the f-troop 32-bit address. He must have pretty deep pockets from the years of dominating the DNS market with his "non-profit" vest-pocket companies. Even ICANN only plans to open a total of 8 offices to cover the litigation landscape around the world.

    It might be useful to have Paul provide the contact of his main legal counsel in all 50 States as a starting point. ISPs could then spend a few hours or days with each attorney to fully digest what Paul asserts. After the State-level discussions start, the ISPs could move to the City-level and obtain the contact for the 20,000+ major U.S. cities. That should be pocket-change for Paul to handle that many simultaneous legal activities. That may help to head off any need to actually test the legal theories in the various Circuit Courts. Just think of the savings in legal fees, long-term.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    The Official Party Line from the IANA via ICANN is
    by Anonymous on Saturday June 05 2004, @06:34PM (#13705)
    The Official Party Line from the IANA via ICANN is


    that the root-server IP blocks are owned by IANA
    and ICANN has a contract with the U.S. Government
    to manage the IANA function.


    also, the contents of the root-servers also
    belongs to the IANA.


    In the ICANN circles, some of the root-server
    operators are viewed as immature jerks and the
    first chance they get, they will be replaced.


    As ICANN expands and cozies up to groups like
    the ITU, root-server operations will be relocated
    to serious facilities operated by serious
    professionals.


    The ISOC and ICANN are rapidly distancing
    themselves from socially mis-fit geeks,
    especially now that the tens of millions of
    dollars in .ORG taxes are flowing to the
    players. They can now fund A-list party-goers
    from LA, New York, D.C. and Paris. Shopping
    on Rodeo Drive is now a field trip for the
    ICANN "staff" and visitors. CompUSA and Fryes
    are not the place to "make the scene".

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]


    Search ICANNWatch.org:


    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