[128199] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ICANN bashing (was Re: Who controlls the Internet?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Mon Jul 26 09:00:16 2010
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100726093052.GB21928@vacation.karoshi.com.>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 05:59:49 -0700
To: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Bill,
I suspect this thread has degenerated to the point of irrelevance, so =
this will be my last comment. Feel free to have the last word.
On Jul 26, 2010, at 2:30 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> yes, ICANN is the current IANA functions _operator_. The IANA =
_never_
> ran/operated network infrastructure (root server operations) =
prior to ICANNs
> assumption of the role. This is the distinction. Perhaps w/o a =
difference.
As when IANA was operated by USC, IANA staff (still) do not run root =
server operations. The ICANN group that run the root server (and do =
other DNS things) are distinct from the folks who do IANA stuff. I would =
argue that IANA staff have always had an operational role in the =
management of the various registries and any additional operational =
activities performed by ICANN were requested by the community. I'm sure =
you disagree.
> Yes they do a fine job. But root server operations is not in =
ICANNs charter or
> mission. Their stated role, when they took it over from USC was =
as a temporary
> steward, until they could find someone to take it on. Only =
later did they=20
> back away from that statement and claimed it for their own.
True, if somewhat negatively skewed and abbreviated. If I understand =
correctly (since I was doing other things in the timeframe we're talking =
here), a set of new root servers were created to fill up the 512 byte =
response and a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) =
between NTIA/NIST and ICANN was undertaken to establish where the new =
root server(s) were to be distributed (among many other things, see =
http://www.icann.org/en/committees/dns-root/crada.htm). However, my =
understanding (since I wasn't involved in root operations back then) was =
that no real progress was made on the CRADA. Folks who were involved in =
that CRADA might wish to correct me or expand on why. Without resolution =
of the CRADA, I'd imagine ICANN acting unilaterally would have generated =
far more criticism. =20
>>> and is trying to take over root zone editorial control.
> You describe the current state of affairs very well.
Yes, you used present tense so describing current state of affairs =
seemed appropriate.
Regards,
-drc
