North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: data request on Sitefinder

  • From: Owen DeLong
  • Date: Tue Oct 21 10:29:39 2003 


To inform? Not yet, although I have the feeling that this will be
changed due to historic record. However, changes that have an effect
are always analyzed and a course of action chosen. I believe this is
the job of ICANN. At some point, ICANN's power will need to be
tested and set in stone. Only the community can create or strip that
power. Yet if an organization is going to exist to serve the
community and maintain order, then it needs the power to do it.





I will point out that it will be much easier for the community to strip
that power than to vest it in another entity.  To strip that power only
requires one of two things:

	1.	Enough of the community heading in a different direction
		and disregarding said entity (ICANN).

	2.	An organization such as Verisign openly defying ICANN
		and ICANN failing to make a sufficiently strong response
		to enforce and protect the consensus will of the community.

I think item 1 is unlikely unless fueled by item 2.  Verisign would do well
to notice that if they do implement the sitefinder wildcards again, and,
ICANN does not successfully put a stop to it, the single most likely outcome
is for the community to view ICANN as irrelevant and impotent.  Once this
happens, the inevitable result is a fragmentation of the DNS, disparate
roots, and, loss of the convention of a single recognized authority at
the root of the tree.  This convention is fundamental to the stability
of the current internet.  Losing it would definitely have negative impact
on the end user experience.

In every forum to which I have convenient access, Verisign has repeatedly
attempted to restrict the discussion to the technical issues around the
wildcards.  The reality is that the technical issues are the tip of the
iceburg and, while costly and significant, they are not the real danger.
The issues that must be addressed are the issues of internet governance,
control of the root (does Verisign serve ICANN or vice-versa), and
finally, whether the .com/.net zones belong to the public trust or to
Verisign.  Focusing on the technical is to fiddle while Rome burns.




Related issues include whether the IETF process, even if flawed, is the
consensus means of proposing and discussing changes in the
infrastructure. Whether or not the operational forums like NANOG have a
role in this process, or even in presenting consensus opinions, also is a
basic question for Internet governance.




The IETF process is the consensus means of proposing and discussing changes

in the DESIGN of the infrastructure, not the construction or maintenance.

That _IS_ the role of the network operators and the operators forums. For

this to work, however, the operators have to be generally of good will and

cooperative for the greater good. This model is somewhat antithetical to

capitalism because for it to operate efficiently, it requires the long term

good of the community to take precedence over the short-term gains of the

individual or single organization. Capitalism is well optimized for the

short-term gains of the individual or single organization. This is one

of the growing pains that comes from the internet being originated as a

government-sponsored community research project. The design was done

assuming a collection of organizations whose primary motivation was to

cooperate. As we shifted to a privatized internet, that fundamental design

assumption was broken and we have seen some interesting changes as a result.

The fact that it still works at all is somewhat of a miracle. Its continued

stable operation will vitally require the continued good will and
cooperation

of the entities playing vital roles. An ISP can be routed-around as damage,

although the larger the provider, the more painful the injury.



If it becomes necessary, significant portions of the internet will route
around

Verisign in a similar manner. The difference is that absent ICANN
providing for

this, there will be no agreed upon replacement, and, several alternatives
will

emerge. The result will be fragmentation of the root, marginalization of
ICANN

and a reduction in internet stability.



I believe much of ICANN's previous resistance to dealing with Verisign's
abuses

of their role has been fear of the instability that could result. It has
appeared

to me to be strategically and tactically very similar to the accomodations
made

by the powers in Europe in the late 1930s. (No, I am not comparing
Verisign's

actions to those of Hitler, but, the strategy and tactics are a match.)

If ICANN continues to give ground, Verisign's capabilities to commit further

abuses will continue to grow as well.




Purely from my experience in journalism, media relations and lobbying, I
have to respect the effectiveness of the Verisign corporate folk who
largely have been setting the terms of debate, and managing the
perception -- or misperception -- of this matter in the business and
general press.




Agreed. This is a big part of how the Nazis came to power in the 1930's as
well.

I hate using that analogy because it is so emotionally charged and the
scope of

the damage was so much more significant, but, again, I am comparing only the

strategy and tactics, not the ideology or the actions.



Owen