[governance] Root Server

[parminder]

David,

Your response below is extremely interesting.

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.

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.)

parminder


On Thursday 24 July 2014 06:30 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> McTim,
>
> On Jul 24, 2014, at 7:43 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The question in my mind is "would those governments be willing to
>> serve the root without censorship?"
> 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?".
>
>> So India for example might be willing to pay, but would they be keen
>> to serve a root with .tata or .hindu in it?
> 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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140725/ca97250b/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