more on Is Icann's importance overstated in the media?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Karl Auerbach <karl () cavebear com>
Date: July 2, 2005 6:50:35 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Is Icann's importance overstated in the media?
Reply-To: Karl Auerbach <karl () cavebear com>




> From: Ole Jacobsen <ole () cisco com>
> Date: July 2, 2005 11:46:46 AM EDT
> Subject: Re: [IP] Is Icann's importance overstated in the media?


> This is simply silly. ICANN has never "managed the traffic on the
> Internet" as Wiggins correctly points out...

I agree that ICANN has never "managed traffic" on the net.

However, ICANN has for years claimed that its role is the technical  
stability of DNS and IP address allocation.  (I bet that people have  
forgotten that ICANN also claims that it exists to "reduce the  
burdens of government".)

(IANA, which is distinct from ICANN and is a jab that ICANN performs  
under delegation/contract from NTIA, the National Atmospheric and  
Oceanic Administration(!), and perhaps also the IETF.  And the IANA  
function with regard to "protocol parameters" has no immediate direct  
impact on day-to-day traffic flows on the net.)

Now, what is this job of technical stability for DNS that ICANN is  
supposed to perform?

No person in their right mind would claim that the job includes the  
reliable operation of the entire DNS hierarchy - the genius of DNS is  
that it distributes responsibility while insulating most DNS users  
from the errors made at the leaves of the hierarchy.

However, technical stability of DNS certainly does entail certain  
aspects of the upper tiers of DNS.

And what are those aspects?  Here's my list of the responsibilitys  
that ICANN has over the upper tier of DNS:

1. That the root zone file is properly prepared.

   ICANN several years ago in its CRADA report said that it, or rather
   IANA, would take this job away from Verisign.  I'm not sure of the
   current status of this.

2. That the root zone file is safely disseminated.

  Again ICANN's old CRADA report said that ICANN wanted to do this, and
  there was a reasonable technical plan in place to do it.  I'm not  
sure
  of the current status of this.

3. That the root servers operate well, meaning at least:

  a) High availability of each server (or anycast server group)

  b) Reasonably prompt updates of the root zone as changes are become
     available.

  d) Prompt response to query packets.

  d) Accurate response to query packets.

  e) Reasonably consistent responses to queries made to different root
     servers at approximately the same time.

  f) No discrimination in favor for or against any query source

  g) No ancillary data mining (e.g. using the queries to generate
     marketing data that is then sold.)

  h) Robust against threats, both natural and human.

  i) Adequate backup and recovery plans in place and tested.

  j) Adequate financial reserves and human resources so that should
     an ill event occur it is possible to recover.

  k) Wide dissemination of the root zone file so that those in local
     communities can cache the data and create local temporar DNS roots
     during times of emergency when those local communities are cut-off
     from the larger part of the internet.

Notice that I do not define technical stability to include any of the  
stuff that ICANN has spent its time on: the business practices of DNS  
registries and registrars.  To my mind that is a matter in which real
competition and the existing regime of laws aganist anti-competitive  
practices and consumer protection provide a better answer than ICANN.

The root server operators, to their great credit, and despite the  
fact that they have nothing more than a moral obligation to do so,  
and often using only their own funds, have met many of the  
requirements I've listed above.

But ICANN has done little more than make a lot of sound and fury, but  
just as it did for MacBeth, it signifies nothing.

Simply put: ICANN is claiming credit for the work of others.

And those others, despite their best of intentions today, are either  
mortal humans or institutions that ultimately have responsibilities  
that could, under circumstances or war or emergency, be inconsistent  
with the items I've listed above.

ICANN claims that it benefits the public (and thus ICANN receives its  
tax exempt status) by virtue of ICANN's ensuring to the public that  
the upper tiers of the DNS operate with technical stability.

ICANN has done nothing more than waved its hands - and sat on a  
committee.

Those of us who use the internet obtain no actual assurance of  
technical stability from ICANN.

We have been fortunate so far - certainly due to the under  
appreciated efforts of the root-server operators - and also due to a  
streak of luck that may someday end without notice.

ICANN's mission has certainly crept - in the realm of business and  
economic ICANN's system of regulation mimics the worst of the telco  
world of the 1950's and 1960's.

But ICANN's mission has also retreated.  ICANN was to have ensured  
the technical stability of parts of the internet.  It has retreated  
from that role (although it still claims that role).  And the  
community of internet users have been left in the lurch and bearing  
the risk.

The fact that NTIA still believes that ICANN is performing this role  
is a sad commentary on NTIA"s self-inflicted blindness.

        --karl--



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/