[dns-operations] K-root governance was Re: renesys blog...

[David Conrad]

Ed,

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  
> available.

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  
whole.

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.

Regards,
-drc