<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>
Your response below is extremely interesting.<br>
<br>
Over the years we - you and I - have had long discussions on this
list about whether and what kind of control the US exercised on
the root of the Internet. After a long argument from either side -
certainly very informative to me - it will finally come to
speculating on what would the non US (or even the US based but not
US gov controlled) root servers do if US were to make a root
change not authorised by a proper global gov body, basically ICANN
at present. You would always insist that in your opinion these
other root server operators will simply not follow suit - and not
follow the 'wrongful' root change. I would argue that I very much
expect them to fall in line - for legal reasons (in case of US
based servers) and geo-political reasons (in case of non US ones,
all being in US allied countries) . But since this counterfactual
scenario could not be proven either way, that would end our
discussion.<br>
<br>
What I see as interesting is your statement below now is that you
*do not* see how other root server operators *may not* follow the
changes in the authoritative root server (under US gov control).
That is, you are saying they will *have to* follow the changes
made in authoritative root file. But this is exactly the opposite
of the argument that you always used to deadlock our conversations
about the problem of US control over the authoritative root
server. Will request you to share the reason for the change in
your position, as I understood it? (I must mention here that our
referred discussions took place after DNSSEC had been put into
place, and I did quote the relevance of DNSSEC being used although
I did say that I did not fully understand how it worked and used
to seek your help to know more about it.)<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 24 July 2014 06:30 PM,
David Conrad wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:EA1D968B-36EA-49B6-8C37-53BAACEAE5E2@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">McTim,
On Jul 24, 2014, at 7:43 AM, McTim <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com"><dogwallah@gmail.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The question in my mind is "would those governments be willing to
serve the root without censorship?"
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Given DNSSEC, that isn't really an issue.
The more interesting questions are "who picks?", "how do they pick?", "under what terms and conditions will service be provided?", and "how are those terms and conditions enforced?".
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">So India for example might be willing to pay, but would they be keen
to serve a root with .tata or .hindu in it?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
If they modified the root zone, it would not validate. In most resolvers, this would mean that root server address would get deprioritized in the list of root servers that get queried. It would essentially be as if they didn't run the root server.
Regards,
-drc
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>