[discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA

Elisabeth Blanconil info at vgnic.org
Tue Mar 4 02:42:46 UTC 2014

At 02:45 04/03/2014, nathalie coupet wrote:
>Could you, jefsey, Hebe, and others, please address the issue of 
>leakage. How could you prevent it (do you want to prevent it)?

As David Conrad mentions it, the leakage is a pollution of DNS 
buffers by a different vision of the name space. This would occur in 
the top zone if there were two different identical TLDs, the zones of 
which would be different, documented by two different root server 
systems of thee same class.

Please note that:
* The ICANN root is authoritative: the NTIA decides which servers are 
to be listed for the different TLDs.
* The ORSN root is non-authoritative: it reports the configuration 
authoritatively indicated by the TLD Managers.

This is the difference between monarchy and polycracy (where the 
common decisions emerge from the diversity of individual 
authoritative decisions which are taken by subsidiarity - i.e. by the 
zone managers, in an MS approach). In a non-attacked class, leaks can 
only happen if an authoritative root administrator decides the 
seizure of TLD. VGNICs reduce the risks from this happening.

I understand that others advocate a commercial oligarchy where the 
root would be voted by the registrars (i.e. people paying ICANN).

The DNS IETF model supports 65,365 roots, one for each class. The 
sole class that people discuss on this list is the "IN" ICANN/NTIA 
class. We call this attitude "the BUG", i.e. being unipolarly global.


>From: James Seng <james.seng at gmail.com>
>To: David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org>
>Cc: "discuss at 1net.org List" <discuss at 1net.org>
>Sent: Monday, March 3, 2014 4:13 PM
>Subject: Re: [discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA
>If we can separate the debate on control over namespace vs the 
>actual operation of the root server (or its anycast consetallation), 
>we can divide the political problem of the root servers by half :-)
>On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:28 AM, David Conrad 
><<mailto:drc at virtualized.org>drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
>On Mar 3, 2014, at 7:10 PM, Seun Ojedeji 
><<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was just trying sight past comments/thread about having 
> multiple alternate root servers (to perhaps break the "perceived" 
> ICANN monopoly (which i agree does not make sense either :) )
>I understand, however just for clarity (and somewhat orthogonal to 
>this thread), there is nothing wrong with having multiple root 
>servers or server systems.  What matters is the namespace, that is 
>the universe of all possible names. How that namespace is 
>implemented, whether it is on the "traditional" name servers or ORSN 
>or via ISP's resolvers  mirroring the root zone or my copying the 
>root zone and installing it on my laptop, is irrelevant 
>(particularly given DNSSEC).  Where things break down is when people 
>want _different_ namespaces at the same time they expect those 
>namespaces to interoperate and not leak.
>discuss mailing list
><mailto:discuss at 1net.org>discuss at 1net.org
>-James Seng
>discuss mailing list
><mailto:discuss at 1net.org>discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140304/bfa0c037/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list