[dns-operations] K-root governance was Re: renesys blog...
drc at virtualized.org
Tue May 27 15:33:53 UTC 2008
On May 27, 2008, at 6:29 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> It sounds like for K root, at least, what DRC is asking for is
Not really. While K-root is probably the most publicly accountable,
the question isn't about RIPE's openness, transparency, and
accountability, rather the openness, transparency, and accountability
in terms of policy of the root server and the root server system as a
More to the point, assertions that "we will do this" or "we assert
that" aren't worth the paper they are(n't) printed on unless there is
some mechanism of enforcement should "this" or "that" not live up to
the promises. If any of the root server operators were to run amok,
as far as I can tell, the only recourse guaranteed to be effective
would be for the US government to step in. For those that argue that
the US government should not have a "special" role in Internet
governance, this would present a bit of a problem.
> My interpretation of DRC's words is not "all root servers under
> ICANN" but "all root servers accountable to some public forum."
More or less. As I have said privately to several folks, what is
important is public accountability and I actually agree that
centralization would likely be sub-optimal. Each root operator having
binding agreements with penalty clauses with _multiple_ organizations
could address both concerns.
> Still, I think that it would a good step if the root server
> operators held some kind of a public (RIR-like) information and
> comment session, perhaps on the Sunday before an IETF (a day in
> which there is already a RSSAC meeting), and maybe just once per year.
I'm not sure yet another Kabuki play would be all that beneficial.
More information about the dns-operations