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

[David Conrad]

Parminder,

On Jun 19, 2012, at 11:25 PM, parminder wrote:
>> 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'. 

Actually, what I have argued ("again and again") is that there is no unilateral action in root zone management.  I stand by that argument and challenge you to provide _fact based_ counter-argument, not hypotheticals.

> 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?!.

Err, no.  The "strongest pillar" is the fact that the Internet operates by cooperative action of independent players.  My apology was to those who might have mis-interpreted my comments to infer I believe the root server operators exercise day-to-day editorial control over the root zone.  They do not.  What the do (voluntarily) provide is the platform by which the root zone is published.  As such, they have the ability to not provide that platform if they so choose. I'm guessing that everyone who understands the issues here, including those involved in the US government's part of "oversight", are aware of the implications of forcing the root server operators to not provide the publishing platform. 

> 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. 

Of course it is very small (although I'll admit missing where you argued this), however that probability is infinitely _larger_ than the probability that the US government will act in a way that would require that action. You pose hypotheticals of situations that will not occur and I point out that even if those hypothetical do occur, there are mechanisms by which the Internet community can respond. I'm sorry if this confused you.

>>  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 [...] the list of such unilaterlism is unending.

Yet in that "unending" list, I challenge you to provide even a _single_ example in which the US government has used its role in root management to do _anything_ that didn't abide by existing root management policies and practices.

I have no doubt the US government, like any other government, will protect its own interests, unilaterally if necessary. However, generally speaking, when one wishes to protect their own interests, they don't typically destroy that which they are trying to protect.  If the US government were to act as you propose, the only long term effects would be to destabilize the Internet, promote a fracturing of the Internet name space, and remove any role the US government might have in Internet management oversight. 

> 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. 

As I've tried to describe, US-based entities (ICANN, Verisign, NTIA) have "command" over the editing of the root zone. They do not have "command" over its publication and use.  

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

Actually, I find safety in the knowledge of how the Internet works.  It's much more reliable than myths and hypotheticals.

> 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? 


They probably would, but hard to say for certain without a concrete example of said "international oversight mechanism". Can you point me at one?

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