[discuss] Host country
jcurran at istaff.org
Mon Mar 17 12:07:13 UTC 2014
On Mar 17, 2014, at 6:21 AM, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
> Do you know of any instances where updates to the root zone from the legitimate operator of the top level domain were not put into effect? The U.S. has long-standing trading restrictions with Cube, North Korea, Iran and Syria, but those zones are treated like any others.
I am not aware of any case where updates to the 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.
At present, every part of the Internet registry system (be it the DNS
root zone, delegated domains, IP registries, etc.) to be subject to
order from a country which cannot be revealed to the global Internet
While I would like to live in a world where the Internet registry system
operates entirely free from political interference (and thus any related
cross-border issues as documented by the folks at the Internet Observatory -
that goal may be unachievable, and hence I suggest a slightly less ambitious
(but more realistic) goal of completely open, transparent, and accountable
operation of the Internet identifier/Internet registry system. If that
were presently the case, we would not be asking whether or not any updates
were not put in effect, we would all already know the answer definitively.
Disclaimer: My views alone.
p.s. The requirement that the IANA functions be managed in a way that is open,
transparent and globally accountable is not solely my view, but is also
the stated position of the ARIN Board as noted in the attached email -
> From: John Curran [jcurran at arin.net]
> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 5:53 AM
> To: Lee W McKnight
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; McTim; Louis Pouzin (well)
> Subject: Re: [governance] Transparency over oversight function
>> On Jun 23, 2012, at 5:47 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>> What I believe McTim and I, and David, are saying, is that the sledgehammer cannot be directed.
>> Messing with the root zone file in any way - always - would hit everyone's fingers.
>> It would be the opposite of 'maintaining stability of the net.'
>> And, OFAC would have that explained to them in whatever way works, metaphorically or not, should they ever attempt to go there, by NTIA, and others.
> Lee -
> I am in general agreement, but will note that there is an underlying requirement
> for transparency in the governance and operation of these functions in order for
> that (inadvisability to meddle in the core functions) to actually hold true.
> DoC/NTIA has done a credible job in keeping the oversight role to the minimum
> necessary and relatively free of US political concerns. While we all hope this
> wil be the case, there would be no way of knowing if otherwise unless the actual
> interactions between NTIA and ICANN are open and transparent. As long as
> this is the case, any cross-USG interactions (e.g. the postulated OFAC issue)
> would be apparent to the community and allow for appropriate response.
> To this end, ARIN's written comments on the IANA Notice of Inquiry specifically
> called out the transparency and accountability requirement:
> "In order to continue to build confidence in the Internet, it is critical that the IANA
> functions be managed in a way that is open, transparent and globally accountable. "
> I believe that Parminder has a valid point that we should not be complacent with
> respect to the ability of the USG to unilaterally act in these matters, while it is
> hoped that appropriate structure of any oversight role will provide the transparency
> that the community needs to facilitate accountability where needed.
> John Curran
> President and CEO
More information about the discuss