[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] [renamed] Key early questions

[James Galvin]

While I have a great deal of sympathy for this point of view, I also 
have a great deal of trouble believing that an RDS is required to exist 
in order to ensure the operational stability of the Internet.

Logically, that argument presupposes that in order to connect to the 
Internet you are required both to identify yourself and to be 
accessible.

Well there are examples all over the place of how that is simply not 
true.  Here’s three.

1. Enterprises routinely setup their infrastructures so that only known 
devices can connect to them.  In addition, they also routinely fail to 
share that detailed level of contact information with the rest of the 
Internet.  The enterprise contact information might itself be hidden 
behind a proxy or privacy service.

2. Access to the Internet is routinely provided to random unknown 
devices by all sorts of Internet cafes around the world.  The Internet 
functions more or less just fine with these devices coming and going.

3. Nation states around the world are stating that contact information 
for Internet related elements may not be shared outside the nation 
state.  The Internet functions just fine without this information being 
shared.

I am also deeply sympathetic to those who want to help, like when 
Comcast wanted to help nasa.gov to use Andrew’s example from a later 
message in this thread.  However, just because Comcast wants to help is 
no reason to require an RDS.  If NASA can’t be contacted then NASA 
loses.  Comcast will have to deal with its customers some other way, 
which it ultimately did in this scenario and will likely do again when 
other circumstances require.

My point is simply, from a technical point of view, if I’m willing to 
accept your help then I’ll make myself known and accessible.  If I 
don’t care then I won’t.  If you want a clause in your terms of 
service to say that I have to identify myself and be accessible to the 
Internet in order to use your service that’s fine.  I can choose a 
different service provider if I don’t want to abide by that service.

If I’m unknown or inaccessible, and you don’t like my Internet 
behavior on your Internet infrastructure, then stop providing me 
service.

The Internet of Things is coming, or may already be here depending on 
your point of view.  Do you seriously think any other operational model 
is going to work?

Jim




On 10 May 2016, at 14:16, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm slightly concerned that we are forgetting in this discussion why
> we _need_ an RDS in the first place.
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:59:29AM -0400, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>>
>> ICANN has business interests in defining what data to collect, 
>> accessible by
>> whom and under what conditions. It also has business interests, from 
>> within
>> its remit, in the data relationship with its contracted parties.
>> However, ICANN’s contracted parties reside within national 
>> jurisdictions,
>> and the relevant data is hosted within national jurisdictions, so 
>> ICANN
>> cannot unilaterally define what constitutes legitimate data policy 
>> within
>> its business interests.
>
> All of the above is something I agree with, but there's another
> important point.  For good, sound, plain old technical reasons, it's
> important that operators be able to contact each other outside of the
> Internet, so that when stuff breaks it's at least logically possible
> that one could try to fix it.
>
> The key point is that this is not some peculiar business interest of
> ICANN, but instead a fundamental interest of anyone who uses the DNS
> (i.e. approximately anyone who uses the Internet).  It's basic to why
> we have ICANN at all.
>
> None of this is an argument that _all_ the information in any
> particular RDS policy is what ought to be in the RDS.  But at the same
> time, it seems to me that some views about RDS treat every data field
> as if it's a simple matter of political negotiation or something like
> that.  They're not all that way.  As an operator of actual technical
> infrastructure, I need to be able to contact someone who is causing
> problems on my network, and that ability to contact had better not
> depend on the Internet since the problem in question is likely to
> result from some sort of interoperation failure in the first place.
> Therefore,
>
>> Some will brand this as the “fracturing of the Internet”. It is 
>> in fact
>> other jurisdictions taking responsibility for Internet governance 
>> outside
>> ICANN’s remit, but within their remit.
>
> I don't think that all of this is just about "Internet governance",
> any more than (say) port number allocations are a matter for Internet
> governance.  Some of it is just a fundamental part of having an
> Internet at all.  Remember, it's an inter-net because of the network
> of networks part.  Interoperation is a fundamental part, not something
> you get to choose or not from a menu of available policy options.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg