<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<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 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>