[discuss] Host country

Mon Mar 17 17:06:40 UTC 2014

On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:43 PM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:

> On Mar 17, 2014, at 6:07 AM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
>> I am not aware of any case where updates to the legitimate updates to 
>> root zone were not put into effect.  
> 
> "Updates to the legitimate updates"?

<chuckle>  my apologies...  should read "I am not aware of any case 
where legitimate updates to root zone were not put into effect." 

>> It is my understanding, however,
>> that it is not presently possible for anyone to know definitively if 
>> this is the case, since the interactions between the USG and parties
>> involved in Internet registry management on these matters have no 
>> structural assurance being completely open and transparent manner to
>> the Internet community.
> 
> There is one case where it is not possible: when the requester and the IANA functions operator reside in the same country.  In all other cases, if the interaction is performed in an open and transparent manner, the lack of action by the IANA functions operator would indicate interference of one form or another.
> 
> Of course, this would imply that requesters be open and transparent in the submission of their requests...

Agreed, but presumes that the requests actually go to the IANA.  For example, I do 
not know if discussions regarding country code redelegations go to IANA or ICANN, 
and whether such discussions would be inhibited by the potential for OFAC issues 
in some cases. 

I imagine some folks would be concerned if that were the case (whereas some might 
not care), but either way the important principle is that the effect that any host 
country's laws have on the IANA registries need to be readily apparent to the entire
Internet community.  It is only by having visibility into such effects that there 
can be any meaningful consideration of the situation by the global community.

FYI,
/John

Disclaimer: My views alone.