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

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
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    This discussion has been archived.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
    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 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 ]
    Moving the root servers to the edge
    by Anonymous on Monday June 07 2004, @06:07PM (#13719)
    Here are the 13 public-domain root server addresses.

    Here are the /24 sub-nets from the above. Note: You just place a zero at the far right. The 13 sub-nets above then supply a large number of resources to the DHCP server to hand out individual addresses. The single addresses for the root servers are not part of the DHCP allocations. They get aliased on to one (or more) local server that knows about all of the TLD servers. All of the root server traffic then becomes routed locally. It never leaves the physical location or country. For third-world countries where band-width is expensive, serving the root server traffic locally saves a lot of money and frees up band-width.

    Rather than use 10.*.*.* or 192.168.*.* for fire-walled networks, it is better to use real IP addresses. The major carriers are starting to use addresses like 10.*.*.* for internal network fabric addressing. In many respects, this is a reversal, the 10.*.*.* addresses, once used at the edge are now moved to the core and the public-domain root server sub-nets, once viewed as being at the center, are now any-casted in millions of locations around the edge.

    [ 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