[ih] Re: anyone remember when the root servers were hi-jacked? (fwd)

[Keith Moore]

> Also, to respond directly to Dave Crocker's note: If the directive was
> justified on the basis that NSI was on the verge of "going rogue," then
> why even bother to call the directive a test? 

because it became apparent that NSI had the political backing to support
their going rogue.

> I'm aware of the very
> longstanding worry in some circles that NSI might do such a thing, 

NSI *did* do such a thing.   We're still largely stuck with the result.

they managed to obtain effective control over the master root server and 
the most popular TLDs.  they retained the ability to exact a toll over 
registrations while giving the appearance of competition (the other 
organizations essentially act as commission-based resellers).  they 
delayed the introduction of any competition for several years, and 
managed to hold on to .COM and .NET for much longer than they should have.  

> but
> it would be useful to see any documentation that might have prompted the
> perception that -- just as the Green Paper was being released --
> *URGENT* action was necessary, either to pre-empt NSI, or to be ready
> "just in case."

I think it was rather a case of "too little, too late".

> It is fair to assume that the USG's agents would have been rather tough
> on NSI if it had added any "rogue" zones to the root.

it's a mistake to assume that NSI's going rogue would have involved
them adding more TLDs.  NSI's interest was not in adding more TLDs,
but in maintaining their existing power/control over the DNS.

of course it helped NSI's arguments that they could say they were merely
maintaining the status quo (one which favored their interests), when they
were in reality able to use this as an excuse to shore up government
support for their monopoly.   They were able to make it appear to the
media as if Jon was changing the status quo, when was the one who was 
widely recognized - within the technical community - as being in charge.

> Magaziner, Burr, et al were willing to intervene because, in their view,
> that commmunity's processes had less than nominal legitimacy to
> determine the deployment of such important resources.  

Whether the US government had the legitimacy to give control over
a vital international resource to a private US company (albiet one with
many close ties to the US government) is of course a separate question.

Keith