[governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ?

[parminder]

On Tuesday 19 June 2012 07:39 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2012, at 3:31 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>    
>> The physical control of the machine is not important (unless its
>> operator decides to break free; unlike David Conrad, I regard this as
>> highly unlikely
>> <http://masonlee.org/2009/12/18/dns-takeover-1998/>).
>>      
> 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,

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'. 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?!. 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.

>   similar in probability to the US government "going rogue" in a way that would impact the root zone.
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 
uses drones to bomb foreign lands and people in contravention of all 
international law, it has unilaterally 'pulled out' the operations on 
globally servicing compaines (like megauploads) without any avenues for 
redress, has often used the power of US based companies in illegitimate 
ways (wikileaks), it disallows companies based in the US, that provide 
vital digital services, like virus protection, from servicing countries, 
even online, that it has blacklisted......... the list of such 
unilaterlism is unending. 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.


>   I am merely pointing out that _if_ the US government were to decide to do something insanely stupid, there would be mechanisms by which those actions could be addressed (in a stunningly destructive way).  This is why I've made analogy to Mutual Assured Destruction nuclear doctrine.
>    

As discussed before, things happen in a much more gradual and calibrated 
way than the scenario you build, and find safety under. 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? parminder

> Regards,
> -drc
>
>
>
>
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120620/fa453a76/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