[dns-operations] TLD zones with lame servers

[Mark Andrews]

> On 11 Jun 2019, at 12:36 am, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:
> 
> On 10 Jun 2019, at 14:17, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Yes, it is on .CM to update the delegation but at some point IANA also
>> has to listen to the operators of the delegated to servers to remove a
>> delegation that is no longer wanted.
> 
> No Mark, they don’t. They shouldn’t either.
> 
> For these issues, IANA can *only* listen to the ccTLD’s formal technical & admin contacts (and/or the Sponsoring Organisation). This is a matter of national sovereignty.
> 
> IANA can’t act unilaterally in these cases. That would require a consensus policy at ICANN and such a policy does not exist. If you think such a thing is needed, go ahead and create one. ICANN’s policy-making machinery is open to all.
> 
> Please also think about the long-term consequences of IANA becoming the TLD police. Could/should IANA delete the NS record for some TLD because it didn’t like the hostname or the choice of DNS software or how it’s configured or where the server is located or if it had an IPv6 address or if it didn’t use the latest EDNS options or….

That’s not what is being asked here and you know it. 

> Could/should Afilias or PIR unilaterally yank the NS record(s) for a lame delegation for isc.org? Who gets to make that decision and what’s are the procedures that have to be followed? This is no different in principle to what you seem to want IANA to do.

Actually if ISC’s server’s where causing issues and it couldn’t be resolved
yes it should be pulled.  It does require going through the documented process
first however.

> Oh and it’s not up to the operator(s) of some TLD’s secondary servers to determine if that TLD’s delegation is wanted or not. That’s solely a matter for that TLD’s Sponsoring Organisation. Which for many countries is typically the national government. RIPE NCC -- not RIPE! -- simply shouldn’t interfere in what is a National Matter. Neither should IANA.

Actually there are multiple parties involved.  RIPE NCC has the *right* to say
to IANA, remove the delegation that points to my servers.  They don’t have the
right to change anything else but that they do.  Just because you are a county it doesn’t give you the right to take resources from elsewhere in the world.

> While I’m sure IANA and RIPE NCC would very much like to get these sorts of delegation problems fixed, it’s simply not in their power or authority to do that. And that’s a Very Good Thing. There are already *far* too many layer-9+ problems around co-ordination of the root zone. Some countries are deeply unhappy that their national resource (ie their ccTLD) is somehow in thrall to an American company, ie IANA (or PTI or whatever it’s called today). If IANA started to mess about with ccTLDs without the approval of the relevant Administration, that will create even bigger layer 9+ problems.

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka at isc.org