IANA discussions: ENOG 7
Dear colleagues, Following on from Alain’s email, I would like to note a couple of items relating to discussions of the IANA oversight transition in the RIPE community. The Eurasian Network Operators' Group (ENOG) held its seventh meeting in Moscow on 26-27 May, the week after RIPE 68. There was a discussion of the IANA oversight transition at that meeting, and a brief summary of that discussion is provided below:
ENOG 7, 27 May 2014 Attendance: Approximately 150
Major points coming out of the discussion: - Additional ways in which the RIPE NCC interacts with the IANA include reverse DNS and running the K-root name server. - It is important to note that the oversight function will not transition to a government-based body. - The technical community has not had any issues with the U.S. government's conduct of its oversight of these functions for the past 20+ years - any new model should not complicate the current system and processes. - The RIPE NCC is not interested in DNS operations and should not be put under that umbrella. - The community should ensure that operators are protected from possible commercial interests, given that some of ICANN’s activities, such as the registration of domain names, are profit-making.
As noted in the RIPE 68 session, the RIPE Cooperation Working Group is the official venue for community discussion of this issue. For this reason, the RIPE NCC will ensure that any discussion in other RIPE community forums is fed back to this list. Summaries of these discussions will also be posted on the RIPE website: http://ripe.net/iana-discussions Any comments or responses to this process or on the substance of the summaries should be posted to this mailing list. Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC
I would think that RIPE NCC would have an interest in DNS operations since it relates to the numbers. Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 5, 2014, at 12:32, Chris Buckridge <chrisb@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Following on from Alain’s email, I would like to note a couple of items relating to discussions of the IANA oversight transition in the RIPE community.
The Eurasian Network Operators' Group (ENOG) held its seventh meeting in Moscow on 26-27 May, the week after RIPE 68. There was a discussion of the IANA oversight transition at that meeting, and a brief summary of that discussion is provided below:
ENOG 7, 27 May 2014 Attendance: Approximately 150
Major points coming out of the discussion: - Additional ways in which the RIPE NCC interacts with the IANA include reverse DNS and running the K-root name server. - It is important to note that the oversight function will not transition to a government-based body. - The technical community has not had any issues with the U.S. government's conduct of its oversight of these functions for the past 20+ years - any new model should not complicate the current system and processes. - The RIPE NCC is not interested in DNS operations and should not be put under that umbrella. - The community should ensure that operators are protected from possible commercial interests, given that some of ICANN’s activities, such as the registration of domain names, are profit-making.
As noted in the RIPE 68 session, the RIPE Cooperation Working Group is the official venue for community discussion of this issue. For this reason, the RIPE NCC will ensure that any discussion in other RIPE community forums is fed back to this list. Summaries of these discussions will also be posted on the RIPE website: http://ripe.net/iana-discussions
Any comments or responses to this process or on the substance of the summaries should be posted to this mailing list.
Best regards,
Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC
On 5.06.14 10:57 , Tim Roy wrote:
I would think that RIPE NCC would have an interest in DNS operations since it relates to the numbers.
On Jun 5, 2014, at 12:32, Chris Buckridge <chrisb@ripe.net> wrote: ...
- The RIPE NCC is not interested in DNS operations and should not be put under that umbrella.
Unfortunate choice of words. I assume what was intended was something like "RIPE and RIPE NCC are not interested in the oversight of maintenance of the DNS root zone." Of course the RIPE NCC is interested in DNS operations as we maintain and serve reverse DNS. We also operate k.root-servers.net and provide measurements and statistics about DNS. Daniel
On 5 Jun 2014, at 11:35, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
Unfortunate choice of words. I assume what was intended was something like "RIPE and RIPE NCC are not interested in the oversight of maintenance of the DNS root zone."
While I'm not going to put words in your mouth Daniel, it seems likely that the DNS WG part of RIPE may well disagree with the above. :-) Of course they may or may not choose to voice those opinions outside the DNS WG through fora like CENTR or the ccNSO. I suppose it also depends on the definition and meaning of "oversight of maintenance". YMMV. This is why I suggested at the mike in Warsaw that preparing a Plan B would be prudent. It would be great for RIPE and the NCC to get consensus and speak with one voice on the NTIA's proposal. I hope that is achieved. However I feel the community could be too diffuse and may well have contradictory views and priorities on what should happen to IANA if/when NTIA cuts the strings. We experienced the difficulties of managing consensus in the DNS WG a few years ago. It was hard work to get a consensus statement from the WG (and then RIPE) on the root zone signing proposal. At first glance that should have been straightforward but it turned out some WG members held mutually exclusive positions on the topic. That consensus statement eventually emerged just before the deadline for comments. For a while it looked as if no statement would come at all. Focusing here on the IANA-RIR relationship might help. OTOH it may mean comments on other key aspects of NTIA oversight of the IANA function get missed or have no platform to be heard. So I'm not sure if we should be ruling these thing in or out of scope at the moment.
On 5.06.14 13:41 , Jim Reid wrote:
On 5 Jun 2014, at 11:35, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
Unfortunate choice of words. I assume what was intended was something like "RIPE and RIPE NCC are not interested in the oversight of maintenance of the DNS root zone."
While I'm not going to put words in your mouth Daniel, it seems likely that the DNS WG part of RIPE may well disagree with the above. :-) ....
While anything is possible that would be a new development. The RIPE community has always taken great care to stay well clear of the **oversight** of the DNS and the **maintenance** of the DNS root zone. Indeed we have sometimes chosen to give our views and advice on these matters. We have done that when decisions in that area affected our community. However to my knowledge we have never seriously considered to get involved with the *governance* of the DNS. Personally I have always agreed that we should leave this area to others. In retrospect I consider this to be one of the key decisions that contributed to the success and credibility of RIPE. But of course we can decide otherwise. I just hope we do not do this without careful consideration. Of course this is completely the other way around when it comes to Internet number resources. Here we firmly want to play a significant role in the *governance* while taking the views and advice of others into consideration. As I said at the previous WG meeting: I consider it absolutely necessary that we speak with one voice about the governance in the numbers area and about the implementation of that part of the IANA service. If we cannot achieve that, our community and our processes loose a lot of their credibility. At the present time we should avoid to discuss anything but the numbers part. It will help us focus and it will prevent confusion. Daniel
That makes more sense and much better phrased for the correct meaning. I thought that is what you meant but wanted to be sure. Thanks for the clarification Tim Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 5, 2014, at 14:35, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
On 5.06.14 10:57 , Tim Roy wrote: I would think that RIPE NCC would have an interest in DNS operations since it relates to the numbers.
On Jun 5, 2014, at 12:32, Chris Buckridge <chrisb@ripe.net> wrote: ... - The RIPE NCC is not interested in DNS operations and should not be put under that umbrella.
Unfortunate choice of words. I assume what was intended was something like "RIPE and RIPE NCC are not interested in the oversight of maintenance of the DNS root zone."
Of course the RIPE NCC is interested in DNS operations as we maintain and serve reverse DNS. We also operate k.root-servers.net and provide measurements and statistics about DNS.
Daniel
participants (4)
-
Chris Buckridge -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Jim Reid -
Tim Roy