[discuss] Problem statement P1

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Jan 21 19:54:06 UTC 2014

On 21/01/2014 20:51, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
> I understand these are facts.  Why are they "issues"?

Isn't it the case in politics that if enough people *say*
something is an issue, then it *is* an issue? I feel that's
what we're dealing with here, unfortunately.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 1:00 PM
> To: John Curran; discuss at 1net.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] Problem statement P1
> Am Mon, 20 Jan 2014 07:45:07 -1000
> schrieb John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org>:
>> On Jan 19, 2014, at 11:06 AM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org>
>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> The USG authorizes changes made to the root zone as well as changes
>>> to the root zone's registration (aka "Whois") database by verifying
>>> ICANN abides by publicly documented policies prior to the changes
>>> being submitted to the Root Zone Maintainer for implementation.
>> This is a very important distinction which requires consideration with
>> respect to the the problem statement.  In particular, there are two
>> distinct issues of direct and unique USG involvement with the DNS root
>> zone: one via the IANA function contract with ICANN and a completely
>> different path via the Root Zone Maintainer process.
>> I would argue that both issues would need to be addressed to satisfy
>> many in the international community, but that does not mean that they
>> are the same problem, only that they are interrelated.  Reinforcing
>> this belief, I can readily envision potential solutions which are only
>> applicable to "US Government involvement in IANA root zone functions"
>> and others which are only applicable to "US Government involvement in
>> DNS root zone maintenance", and hence would recommend bifurcating the
>> problem statement into two and focusing on the IANA root zone aspects
>> first.
> A third, distinct and also interrelated issue is that of the IANA function contractor being subject to US law.
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>                                                                 * * *
> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
> confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
> error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
> e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or
> use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
> person. Thank you for your cooperation.
>                                                                 * * *
> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
> inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
> advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not
> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
> avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
> and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
> party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
>                                                                         Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

More information about the discuss mailing list