<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
On Tuesday 19 June 2012 07:39 PM, David Conrad wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Jun 19, 2012, at 3:31 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The physical control of the machine is not important (unless its
operator decides to break free; unlike David Conrad, I regard this as
highly unlikely
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://masonlee.org/2009/12/18/dns-takeover-1998/"><http://masonlee.org/2009/12/18/dns-takeover-1998/></a>).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Sorry if I gave the wrong impression here. I consider the chances the root server operators would decide to refuse to serve the root zone as infinitesimally unlikely,</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, you did give the wrong impression, and argued it again and again
as the primary basis of your satisfaction with the status quo on
'oversight'. This was the strongest pillar on which your defence of the
status quo was based, and now you apologize for probably having given
the wrong impression?!. In fact, when I kept responding that the chance
of root server operators refusing to serve the root zone was very very
small, you never seemed to agree. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> similar in probability to the US government "going rogue" in a way that would impact the root zone.</pre>
</blockquote>
There is enough evidence that US would act unilaterally to use all
means at its command in service of what it percieves as its interests.
Kivuva speaks of nuclear bombing, but even in contemporary times, US
freqently uses drones to bomb foreign lands and people in contravention
of all international law, it has unilaterally 'pulled out' the
operations on globally servicing compaines (like megauploads) without
any avenues for redress, has often used the power of US based companies
in illegitimate ways (wikileaks), it disallows companies based in the
US, that provide vital digital services, like virus protection, from
servicing countries, even online, that it has blacklisted......... the
list of such unilaterlism is unending. Your threshold for what you
consider as evidence for the possibility that US may use its command
over root zone even in what it perceives as emergency conditions is
simply too high to be realistic. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> I am merely pointing out that _if_ the US government were to decide to do something insanely stupid, there would be mechanisms by which those actions could be addressed (in a stunningly destructive way). This is why I've made analogy to Mutual Assured Destruction nuclear doctrine.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
As discussed before, things happen in a much more gradual and
calibrated way than the scenario you build, and find safety under. But
even if we were to agree to what you argue, why would the same
safe-guards not operate in case of a international oversight mechanism?
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Regards,
-drc
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>