[governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...)

[parminder]

David

On Wednesday 08 August 2012 07:35 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2012, at 11:38 PM, parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>  wrote:
>> 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.
> 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.
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.


> 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.
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.

>   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").

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.
> 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.
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).


>    Hopefully someone found it useful.
>
>> (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
> 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.
>   
>> - whereby, it is useful to redistribute root server operator-ship among agencies that together are more likely to resist US unilateralism.
> 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.

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.


regards
parminder


> Regards,
> -drc
>
>
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120809/98403ed9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t