<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">Meanwhile, I do strongly suspect (in fact am
pretty sure) that, such is the implication of the judgement vis a
vis US's geopolitical interests, the establishment will get
moving swiftly and 'manage' to do something about it.... However,
I think we would like to leave global governance of the Internet
neither at the mercy of the US law, nor of some kinds of
shenanigans. That is the point.</font><br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 01 July 2014 10:41 AM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53B242F4.2080806@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 30 June 2014 09:37 PM,
David Conrad wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7E701249-A0AB-4F29-804A-B7557E8761E7@virtualized.org"
type="cite">SNIP
<pre wrap="">Not quite. In the .COM case, Verisign controls the zone file and has control over the authority servers. In the root case, ICANN controls neither the zone file nor the authority servers (excepting "L" of course).</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Then whichever US entity controls them, the orders will be
directly to them... For a US court, they are all the same, and
order modification when the necessary cause is established will
take maybe a day. Such a thing requires no new process or hearing
by the court, it is merely a technical detail which can
immediately be modified/ corrected. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7E701249-A0AB-4F29-804A-B7557E8761E7@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
However, for sake of argument, ignore reality and assume a court order is issued that demands ICANN transfer .IR (and all appeals are exhausted). ICANN would presumably then create and submit the root zone change request to NTIA for authorization. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Right. This is what it will 'have' to do.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7E701249-A0AB-4F29-804A-B7557E8761E7@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Such a change request is obviously outside of policy, thus NTIA should reject it.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Court order is policy, or higher than it.... <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7E701249-A0AB-4F29-804A-B7557E8761E7@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> A new court order (or lawsuit?) would likely be necessary, this one against the U. S. Dept. of Commerce, NTIA. If we assume that succeeds, </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I am not sure what you mean by 'succeeds'... Once a court decides
that the seizure of assets of any party which are held in the US
is the right thing to do, it is of little consequence which agency
actually has the necessary power and role. As said, for the
courts, NTIA like ICANN is just another US agency subject to US
law and court orders... Another order will need no new process,
and maybe just a day or two to issue. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7E701249-A0AB-4F29-804A-B7557E8761E7@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">then presumably NTIA would direct Verisign to modify the root zone to update the glue records for .IR to point to the new servers.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7E701249-A0AB-4F29-804A-B7557E8761E7@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> The root server operators (and others) would then be required to server the new zone. I have some skepticism that all the root server operators (and others) will actually do so.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
You are side stepping here the extremely relevant point that out
of the 13 root service operators, 10 are subject to the
jurisdiction of the same court, and they will damn well comply and
make the changes too - whether it requires another small step of
another specific order to them or not. <br>
<br>
As for the root operators outside the US, they will be faced with
a tough choice. <br>
<br>
1. Either they do the same which the US based servers would have
to do, whereby we face the original problem of how a cctld is able
to be completely divested on a US court order. <br>
<br>
2. They do not comply and try what you say below which, since the
US based operators will have to comply to the US court order, will
simple fracture the root. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7E701249-A0AB-4F29-804A-B7557E8761E7@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Far more likely in my opinion: a new root authority will be established, the root trust anchor will be updated to reflect that new authority, and the root server operators (and others) will pull the zone from that new authority.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Neither of the scenario look too good to me. (I bet, they - the
non US operators, will simply comply with what the US guys do,
but whatever.)<br>
<br>
Which shows how significant the US court judgement is (which
although only makes a point which has always been obvious and many
of us have repeatedly been warning against), and whereby those who
are really considered about the fairness and effectiveness of
global governance of the Internet should be thinking of doing
something. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7E701249-A0AB-4F29-804A-B7557E8761E7@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
The core problem here is an assumption of top-down control of the Internet. Despite the cliche, in reality, authority really does derive from the bottom-up. In this case, authority rests with the resolver operators that configure the trust anchor and/or the root server operators (and others). ICANN, the root management partners, and the vast array of policies, processes, and systems that exist are merely an agreed upon convention that facilitates updating the root zone.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
David, not only are all of these fully subject to law, and in this
case, unfairly to the US law, it would be quite unacceptable if
they were operating outside any kind of law. 'Bottom down' looks a
good anarchic term when it suits a certain status quo, but the
facts are as they are. <br>
<br>
Regards<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7E701249-A0AB-4F29-804A-B7557E8761E7@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Regards,
-drc
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>