RE: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

Dear Asaad,
I am afraid that John is right. This is why I did not respond to Karl about 
the choice of the USA to land the ICANN in its present formulation.

But let be clearer; should the USA decide to attack Iraq, be sure that 
there would be some up-dates into the root file. The ".iq" entries would 
certainly be updated to US Arrmy name servers and the IPs of the local ISPs 
wuold be black holed. So not one from Iraq could access the net and no one 
from outside Iraq could access .iq sites.

I do not think this is something that any country can accept. Not only Iraq 
if under DoS, but also every other country seeing its international digital 
affairs directed (or in a position to be directed) by a foreign 
governement, even its closest friend. This is why for net operation 
stability we have to run multiple independant parallel root systems, 
preventingthe policy of one Gov to interfere.

Now let suppose an enemy of the USA hits the root servers system, either 
with a bomb at the master system or hacks it. The impact on the network 
would  not be negligible (mostly through the press, I reckon). The impact 
on telecommunications Internet invested projects like UMTS would be bad. I 
do not want my country's economy and employement to be threaten by that 
poor ICANN planing. If the US root system is hurt, there is no reason for 
all the other root systems of the world to be affected. And for these 
system not to immediately assist with safe data. Any seaman knows that 
compatmenting makes security. I want every country to be able to report 
that even if one of the local root server system has been hit, the rest of 
the world performed nomally and brought immediate assistance.

Today 60 ccTLDs are affected by Quest going down. The reorganization seems 
to be well addressed by John L. Crain from ICANN (bravo!). But this should 
be automatic in the way the DNS ccTLDs and gTLDs is set-up. They should 
have their name servers on several root server systems. So, if a master 
system is affected, the entire root is immediately turned down, the clean 
one continuing to perform without interruption. There should be permanent 
inter-root security checks. This was the way the initial ARPA was said to 
work, I suppose it would be interesting to consider it again. But Stuart 
MdR's commedy was not about security I am afraid, but to use Sep 11th to 
the opposite target of supporting his ICP-3 creed.

jfc










At 09:20 05/06/02, John Berryhill wrote:


> > John, if we go by your treasury argument, then at least the
> > leading 25 .com
> > registrars are already in violation of the law by selling
> > thousands of names to
> > citizens of Iraq & Libya. Do a whois query and you will find out
> > for yourself.
>
>
>That is correct, as we have discussed before Mr. Alnajjar.  For example,
>Global Domains International provides domain registration for iraqtv.ws,
>which is operated by the Iraqi SCIS to broadcast Iraq's satellite television
>service.  Technical support for this Iraqi government operation is provided
>by Akamai.
>
>The Iraqi government recently had to move uruklink.net from Register.com,
>through a progression of US registrars, and ultimately to a Swedish
>registrar.  That Swedish registrar, however, is now in violation of the
>relevant Swedish regulations implementing the EU version of the UN Security
>Council resolutions relating to trade with Iraq.
>
> > In my personal opinion, the role and interaction of ICANN is no
> > different than
> > that of communications companies providing long distance services to the
> > countries you mention here, isn't it?
>
>Your personal opinion differs with the law.  OFAC regulations general
>contain an exemption for telecommunication connectivity services.
>Additionally, there are countervailing treaty obligations relating to
>telephonic communication services.
>
>A domain name registration is a commercial service contract that is not
>required for telecommunication connectivity.
>
>Although the files relating to ICANN's negotiations with foreign governments
>are among those for which ICANN imposes certain access conditions upon its
>directors, the bottom line is that ICANN is not a telecommunication service
>provider and is not covered by the relevant exemptions for the services
>which ICANN purports to be negotiating with the respective governments of
>these countries.
>
>If they have obtained a license from the US Treasury department, they
>certainly have not disclosed that fact.
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html