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

Thu Aug 9 16:47:36 EDT 2012

Hi,

as I previously and Daniel Kalchev today have suggested, from here on it's just for the lulz, right, Parminder? 

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

! !! !!! !!!!
NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO

+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD

+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO

SMS +525541444475
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

________________________________________
Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de David Conrad [drc at virtualized.org]
Enviado el: jueves, 09 de agosto de 2012 15:17
Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Asunto: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...)

Parminder,

On Aug 9, 2012, at 3:15 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> 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!

I would agree that it is non-technical.

> So much, therefore, for your admonishing 'folks with political agendas' below.

I was speaking of folks who knowingly distort or obfuscate facts in order to drive political agendas.  I have no issue with driving political (or other non-technical) agendas based on facts.

> For root operators within US, you are wrong. You havent heard of emergency powers?!

Sigh. Alright, yes, I am wrong: if the USG were to declare martial law in order to force the root server operators based in the US to accept a root zone change, then yes, those root server operators would accept the change. I will admit I believe the likelihood of this occurring is, shall we say, a bit remote.

> And the US president is trying to take up more wrt to the Internet infrastructure, which includes the root.

[citation needed]

>>  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,

Well, yes.  I get that you disagree with this view.

> but other countries (not only China and Russia) can hardly be trusted....

Not even the slightest -- I challenge you to point to anything I have said that would suggest this.  My argument is based on simple pragmatic reality that there is no central authority in control of the root server system and as a result, attempts to abuse that system must take into account the likely outcome of Mutual Assured Destruction as the various independent actors act in their own self interest and/or what they believe to be the Internet's best interests.

> 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).

I suppose if you define anything that is non-technical to be "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).

"Don't bother me with facts, I'm talking politics"?  I think I see why you appear to have missed some of my comments. :-)

> If something is the right thing for all of us, we will find ways to do it.

As I said, I honestly wish you luck. However, since this is a political discussion, I'll leave it to the politicians (with the proviso that I might jump in to correct technical errors, omissions, or lies).

Regards,
-drc

-------------- 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