[ALAC] [At-Large] Review of the DNS Root Server Advisory Committee

[Roberto Gaetano]

May I repeat what Jaap has already said, do not confuse the root server
operators with RSSAC.
What is being reviewed by Westlake is RSSAC, not the root server operators
community. A higher involvment of the internet community in RSSAC does not
mean that different constituencies are going to interfere with root
operations, in much the same way to have liaisons with the GAC does not mean
interference with how the governments operate.
At least, this is how I understand it.
Cheers,
Roberto


> -----Original Message-----
> From: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
> [mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf 
> Of Evan Leibovitch
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2009 16:43
> To: At-Large Worldwide
> Cc: At-Large Worldwide
> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Review of the DNS Root Server 
> Advisory Committee
> 
> Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > There is much history here - the root server operators, or 
> rather the 
> > operators of the primary system of root servers (there are other 
> > systems of root servers) have never pledged allegiance to ICANN.
> > Rather they run their systems as their own systems, set their own 
> > rules, adopt their own procedures.
> >
> > In a way this has been good because those folks who are doing this 
> > have done a spectacular job.
> I appreciate the history but am trying to understand how it 
> guides the present situation. Westlake wants ICANN (and its 
> various constituencies) far more deeply involved in the root 
> servers -- yet your history suggests that their independence 
> has served RSAC well.
> 
> It is reasonable than an ICANN that would be involved with 
> TLDs and IPV6 would also have a hand in the root servers. But 
> based on what you and others have said, it seems like 
> Westlake is recommending substantial repair to something that 
> isn't broken. Furthermore, ICANN -- including ALAC -- have 
> little to teach RSAC about transparency and accountability.
> 
> > But on the other hand, there needs to be some formality of 
> obligation. 
> > There needs to be some constraint that keeps the root 
> server operators 
> > from giving into financial pressures and doing bad things.
> 
> So... what is the useful recommendation moving forward? Is 
> the status quo not a viable option, considering the 
> difficulty with which any worthy changes would be 
> implemented? Given to their own processes, Karl describes 
> that, when confronted with challenges, the RSAC has tended to 
> do the right thing. Is that only by chance? Or perhaps... in 
> their opacity they have developed a reasonable process for 
> good judgement.
> 
> Indeed, based on what's been said maybe RSAC has something to 
> teach ICANN as well.
> 
> - Evan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlar
ge-lists.icann.org
> 
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org


____________
Virus checked by G DATA AntiVirus
Version: AVF 19.276 from 25.02.2009
Virus news: www.antiviruslab.com