[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 4, Issue 145

Adiel Akplogan adiel at afrinic.net
Mon Mar 17 18:11:36 UTC 2014

Hello Steve,

On Mar 17, 2014, at 14:21 PM, 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’m no saying there is one and maybe there isn’t, but how does someone know that it hasn’t/won’t/can’t happen?  There is no documented reference for that to which I can point people to. However what is known is that OFAC for instance has impacted organisations with international scope such as ICANN or ISOC to smoothly engage (within the wider scope of their mission/mandate) with Internet users/business in some countries. If you put that in front of the lack of certainty described above, someone can easily draw a conclusion that may or may not be true. For something that has an international scope and implication such root zone administration for instance, it will be good for scoping and global confidence if it is not subject to just one country’s jurisdiction. It takes just a group of intentionally (or not) “rogue” policy makers to overrule any good sense.

What we know about mass surveillance today and its scope is an example of how things can sound impossible practically (and based only on “technical" considerations) but in really it just needs someone to find and sell a good rational value for doing it for it to happen at a scope that was not easily imaginable (mobilising the needed resources to do it - not only public but also private).

- a.

> On Mar 17, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Adiel Akplogan <adiel at afrinic.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 01:37 AM, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
>>>>> The question has already been asked and I’ll ask again.  What is the
>>>>> specific problem about being subject to US law?  As a general matter,
>>>>> rule of law is usually considered one of the U.S.’s very strongest
>>>>> qualities.
>>>> This has been answered many times by many people, but I will answer yet again.  US law on occasion restricts who a company does business with. Losing NTIA oversight does not change that.  IANA should not be subject to such vagaries of national law.
>>> If you’re referring to OFAC, there are similar mechanisms in every jurisdiction.  There is no obviously “completely safe” place anywhere on earth. In practice, ICANN has navigated this area extremely well.
>> Hello Steve, I’m not sure “extremely well” is quite right here. I do believe that ICANN tries to do its best in that area, but frankly OFAC is an illustration of IANA functions (and in some extend ICANN) being subject to a specific country's laws is not aligned with the Internet as an open and permissionless innovation tools we defend. And because there will be similar mechanism in every jurisdiction, IANA function (and ICANN) should look for a way to operate under a Host country agreement (or similar) where the critical role of the function is recognised and protected against a one country based "interest". There has been few scenarios proposed on the list that may need attention and further Analysis. That clearly will be the next "big" thing to fix in the debate of IANA function now that the USG has clearly stated their intent to give up their unique role. One thing at the time but with diligence.
>> - a (only my personal view).

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 313 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140317/5eeeba2d/signature.asc>

More information about the discuss mailing list