<!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>
<br>
On Wednesday 20 June 2012 09:57 PM, David Conrad wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:A80AB065-0D99-445D-B508-961CEC01667E@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Parminder,
On Jun 19, 2012, at 11:25 PM, parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<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>
<pre wrap="">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'.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Actually, what I have argued ("again and again") is that there is no unilateral action in root zone management. I stand by that argument and challenge you to provide _fact based_ counter-argument, not hypotheticals.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think we had cleared this level long back in our argument that we are
*not* any longer discussing the 'technical possibility' of the root
server operators not publishing the authoritative root zone file but
the 'socio-political' likelihood that they would in fact do such a
thing. Stephanie had spoken of this likelihood and not the 'technical
possibility', and, in this regard, expressed disagreement with David.
To quote Stephanie's email "unless its operator decides to break free;
unlike David Conrad, I regard this as highly unlikely.......... "<br>
<br>
And since you answered to this statement with an apology of possible
misunderstanding, I was confounded, because I thought you have been
saying all along that you indeed think that if the US did interfere
with the root, the root server operators, other than the one under US
gov contract, will in fact 'break free'. (Lee and others supported and
built on this argument as the principal element in the discussion about
possible misuse of US's control over the root.) <br>
<br>
I repeat, I dont think such 'breaking free' is likely and therefore the
so called current distributed root server architecture *does not*
provide us protection against likely improper interference of the US
with the root. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:A80AB065-0D99-445D-B508-961CEC01667E@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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?!.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Err, no. The "strongest pillar" is the fact that the Internet operates by cooperative action of independent players. My apology was to those who might have mis-interpreted my comments to infer I believe the root server operators exercise day-to-day editorial control over the root zone. They do not. What the do (voluntarily) provide is the platform by which the root zone is published. As such, they have the ability to not provide that platform if they so choose. I'm guessing that everyone who understands the issues here, including those involved in the US government's part of "oversight", are aware of the implications of forcing the root server operators to not provide the publishing platform.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Of course it is very small (although I'll admit missing where you argued this), however that probability is infinitely _larger_ than the probability that the US government will act in a way that would require that action. You pose hypotheticals of situations that will not occur and I point out that even if those hypothetical do occur, there are mechanisms by which the Internet community can respond. I'm sorry if this confused you.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> similar in probability to the US government "going rogue" in a way that would impact the root zone.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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 [...] the list of such unilaterlism is unending.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Yet in that "unending" list, I challenge you to provide even a _single_ example in which the US government has used its role in root management to do _anything_ that didn't abide by existing root management policies and practices.
I have no doubt the US government, like any other government, will protect its own interests, unilaterally if necessary. However, generally speaking, when one wishes to protect their own interests, they don't typically destroy that which they are trying to protect. If the US government were to act as you propose, the only long term effects would be to destabilize the Internet, promote a fracturing of the Internet name space, and remove any role the US government might have in Internet management oversight.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
As I've tried to describe, US-based entities (ICANN, Verisign, NTIA) have "command" over the editing of the root zone. They do not have "command" over its publication and use.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">As discussed before, things happen in a much more gradual and calibrated way than the scenario you build, and find safety under.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Actually, I find safety in the knowledge of how the Internet works. It's much more reliable than myths and hypotheticals.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
They probably would, but hard to say for certain without a concrete example of said "international oversight mechanism". Can you point me at one?
Regards,
-drc
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>