<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">David<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 08 August 2012 07:35 PM,
David Conrad wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:ECF0FE1B-7B94-4C24-ADC8-8D5116F05EFE@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Aug 7, 2012, at 11:38 PM, parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">When I and others argued why US cannot be relied on to have the unilateral authority to change the root file at its will - the MAIN argument by David and others was; the 13, or at least 9, root zone operators will very likely simply refuse to publish a file so changed by the US.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Actually, my MAIN argument was that it is ridiculously unlikely that the US government would destroy everything it has invested in its push to "privatize" Internet resource management by bypassing documented policies and procedures to force an inappropriate change in the root zone. It would just be silly. </pre>
</blockquote>
Lets then first at least agree that your MAIN argument is indeed
political, right! It is not technical. Now, many say that such
arguments as you give above are used by people ( maybe not you) with
political agendas, however good and virtuous they may be (US is
good, China isnt, lets propagate openness and democracy etc). So
much, therefore, for your admonishing 'folks with political agendas'
below. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:ECF0FE1B-7B94-4C24-ADC8-8D5116F05EFE@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">However, even if the US government decided to destroy all their efforts in privatizing Internet resource management, inappropriate modifications to the root zone would still have to be published to the root servers and be accepted by resolver operators. Ignoring lawsuits from ICANN and Verisign (since this scenario presupposes the USG doesn't act rationally), since 3 root server operators are outside the US and only 5 root servers are directly associated with parts of the US government, the rogue US government would have no direct way to force all of the root servers to accept the inappropriate root zone updates.</pre>
</blockquote>
For root operators within US, you are wrong. You havent heard of
emergency powers?! And the US president is trying to take up more
wrt to the Internet infrastructure, which includes the root. About
the 3 outside ones, influences and security relationship obligations
can work, and in my judgement will work, in what gets perceived as
collective strategic need.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:ECF0FE1B-7B94-4C24-ADC8-8D5116F05EFE@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Further, resolver operators, once made aware of inappropriate changes to the root, could take steps if they so desired to address the issue (e.g., point their resolvers at different root servers). The implied chaos of all of this in and of itself would make "ridiculously" turn into "ludicrously" (or more directly: "it ain't gonna happen").</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
The whole argument is based on the proposition that the US gov, and
presumably US people are not stupid, but other countries (not only
China and Russia) can hardly be trusted.... My democratic instinct
doesnt allow me to accept this. Such arguments based on such narrow
politico-cultural logics are unsustainable, and are in fact,
distasteful.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:ECF0FE1B-7B94-4C24-ADC8-8D5116F05EFE@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">As I said in an earlier message, the focus on root server (operators) is a red herring. I've engaged in this discussion primarily to make sure people understand how the root system, from ICANN to NTIA to Verisign to the root servers, actually works, not how various folks with political agendas would like people to think it works.</pre>
</blockquote>
Uh, back to people with (nefarious) political agendas versus good
ones with only neutral technical views and advice :).... Well, to
dispel such constructions was one of my MAIN reasons for this
discussion. Please note that the only reasonable counter arguments
that has been given to my proposal of relocating root server
operatorship - whether by Daniel or Ian - are POLITICAL ones. (Even
your arguments above are political). So can I once again request the
technical community to give up this holier-than-thou attitude - we
know the technical facts, if only others will listen. We are
primarily discussing politics here. lets be clear. Technical facts
remain important, but they should not take the veneer of superiority
(and, accordingly, the bearers of technical facts). <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:ECF0FE1B-7B94-4C24-ADC8-8D5116F05EFE@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Hopefully someone found it useful.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">(2) Or, indeed, at least potentially, root operators can refuse to publish what is considered as an improperly changed file by the US, and support the internet system continuing to work on the basis of the original 'proper' file
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">This is actually what I've been arguing (although I believe Stephane disagreed). I believe some of the root server operators, being confronted with an inappropriate zone modification, would refuse to update the zone thereby giving the Internet community time to figure out an alternative to the USG-controlled distribution master and/or saner heads to prevail within the USG.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">- whereby, it is useful to redistribute root server operator-ship among agencies that together are more likely to resist US unilateralism.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Knock yourself out. There are 12 organizations you can talk to to convince them they should give up their root server(s). If you'd like contact information, let me know. If you do pursue this, I (honestly) wish you luck -- my interactions with the root server operators most typically spike my blood pressure, but that's probably just me.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
The world is not just based on private interest based private
contracts. Our basic social systems and structures - and Internet is
now certainly such a system, will be governed by social contract and
pubic law. If something is the right thing for all of us, we will
find ways to do it. On the other hand, it is not about my arguing
with a private operator. It is about normative view of what is right
and what not.... You undervalue the strength of say, a very large
part of civil society, and many if not all of tech community,
solidly taking a stand that - yes, the present CIR management system
is unfair and undemocratic. While we must amend the root zone
authorisation process, in the meantime, we should ask, say 3 of the
US root operators to give up their ownership in favour of three
RIRs. Let us take such a common statement to all possible forums -
including to ICANN ( which I know will simply rub off its hands).
Let it be adopted as a soft resolution/ rec by many parties at the
IGF, etc etc. Let us lobby with the US gov, and other govs,
including EU etc..... this is the kind of thing civil society does.
And IGC is basically a civil society forum. <br>
<br>
<br>
regards<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:ECF0FE1B-7B94-4C24-ADC8-8D5116F05EFE@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Regards,
-drc
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>