<HTML><BODY>
<DIV>Listening in on the hypothetical scenario of USG removing the present
.ir <BR>registry from the root zone, and currently in charge of .ir, I
couldn't help <BR>but throw in my two cents:<BR>1. If there is a war between
the US and Iran, the root zone would be the <BR>least of my worries as far
Internet goes. It would be very easy for the US <BR>to insulate Iran,
Internet-wise, with or without ORSN or any other <BR>independent-minded
operators, by simply cutting off Iran physically from the <BR>network. USG
simply has to severe the fiber running from a southern Iranian <BR>port(and
two other projected fibers through Turkey and Azerbaijan) and to <BR>jam the
satellite signals that provide alternative external Internet connection. All
<BR>very easy regardless of the location of Root Server A and who operates
it. <BR>In fact at the beginning of the US invasion of Afghanistan a few
years back, <BR>when about half of Iran's external Internet was served by an
inclined orbit <BR>EUTELSAT, the connection became inexplicably unstable,
and the provider( a <BR>France Telecom subsidiary) gave no official
explanation although it alluded <BR>unofficially to the war going on in
Afghanistan. <BR>2. So the real question is whether USG would do such a
thing during peace <BR>time. So far it hasn't and maybe it never will. But
we'd feel safer if <BR>there's a written guarantee that USG will not
interfere in the operations of <BR>IANA, will not pressure ICANN, etc,etc.
Note that political pressure can go <BR>many ways. If USG decides to appease
the Iranian govt. by pressuring ICANN <BR>to redelegate .ir ccTLD to someone
the Iranian GAC representative wants, <BR>then you'd have political
interference going the opposite direction Milton <BR>Mueller is
discussing.<BR>My fear is that the net outcome of all governance discussion
at WSIS, where <BR>the only voice coming from third-world countries is the
voice of <BR>governments, will be to split the governance between 'North'
and 'South', <BR>with the North staying more or less as it is and the South
going to some <BR>inter-governmental agency like ITU. </DIV>
<DIV>Siavash Shahshahani</DIV>
<DIV>*************************************************<BR>IPM/IRNIC<BR>P O
Box 19395-1795, Tehran, Iran<BR>Phone: (+98 21)22 29 18 12, Cell: (+98
912)104 2501<BR>Fax: (+98 21)22 29 57 00<BR>Email: <A
href="javascript:openWin('/WorldClient.dll?Session=JYMBTFT&View=Compose&To=shahshah%40iranet.ir&New=Yes','Compose',800,600,'yes');">
shahshah@iranet.ir</A>, <A
href="javascript:openWin('/WorldClient.dll?Session=JYMBTFT&View=Compose&To=shahshah%40nic.ir&New=Yes','Compose',800,600,'yes');">
shahshah@nic.ir</A><BR>*************************************************<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>From: "Milton Mueller"
<mueller@syr.edu><BR>To: <governance@lists.cpsr.org>,
<paul@vix.com><BR>Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:41:18 -0400<BR>Subject:
Re: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration (fwd)<BR>
<BR>> >>> Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com> 10/09/05 9:32 PM
>>><BR>> >i'm cc'ing mr. mueller in hopes that he will
forward it to the <BR>> >list on my behalf<BR>> <BR>> Done. My
reply to your post below.<BR>> <BR>> >If ORSN ever publishes data
that did not come originally from <BR>> >IANA, beyond the minor change
to the ". NS" RRset needed to <BR>> >make ORSN's project viable at
all, then that will probably end <BR>> >my involvement with them.<BR>
> <BR>> I understand this distinction quite well. No one is accusing
you of<BR>> supporting an effort that is attempting to add new TLDs to
the root<BR>> zone<BR>> via some process that is outside of and
parallel to ICANN's. So, relax.<BR>> <BR>> # ... if the USG abuses its
oversight authority and does something to<BR>> #the root zone that makes
it different, such as throwing Iran's ccTLD<BR>> #out of the root zone,
will ORSN follow suit? I suspect (and hope)<BR>> not.<BR>>
#Then you will have a split root.<BR>> <BR>> >then you will
have a root nameserver system that's publishing <BR>> >stale IANA data
rather than up-to-date IANA data. <BR>> <BR>> I understand this
distinction quite well, too. And you are wrong that<BR>> the result is
not two distinct name spaces. If up-to-date<BR>> USG-controlled<BR>>
IANA data differs from "stale" IANA data, you have a split root.<BR>>
Period.<BR>> You know this as well as I.<BR>> <BR>> You would be
much more convincing if you would point out that the<BR>> existence of
this independently-maintained root reduces the chance that<BR>> the USG
would abuse its oversight over the root zone file to begin<BR>> with.<BR>
> It would basically be a game of chicken in which the threat of
a<BR>> viable<BR>> alternate root system capacble of creating a DNS
incompatibility<BR>> obviously not in everyone's interests would make USG
think twice about<BR>> doing it.<BR>> <BR>> And that's why I
support what you and ORSN are doing. So, relax.<BR>> <BR>> >that
ain't the same thing, at all, as a<BR>> >split root. <BR>>
<BR>> Wrong. To use my example, a root without .ir, or one in which
USG<BR>> unilaterally redelegates .ir to someone new, constitutes two
different<BR>> name spaces, if ORSN doesn't follow suit and sticks to the
"stale"<BR>> data,<BR>> you have a DNS incompatibliity. <BR>>
<BR>> Of course that scenario is highly unlikely. But the likelihood of
the<BR>> scenario is irrelevant to the logical point about the name
space. (At<BR>> least, I HOPE it is unlikely, but it is not too stupid
for some of the<BR>> militant idiots running around the Bush
administration to contemplate,<BR>> I<BR>> am afraid. If you think
otherwise I would suggest that you spend less<BR>> time on the West coast
and more time in neocon circles in Washington.<BR>> And think less of
about "Prepcom3 results" and more about the Family<BR>> Research Council
and .xxx. <BR>> <BR>> # In essence, Paul Vixie is saying is that he is
willing to risk<BR>> # splitting the root for defensive, political
reasons, and not for<BR>> # profit-motivated, economic reasons.<BR>>
<BR>> >no. paul vixie (me) has never said he (i) would split the
root.<BR>> <BR>> Except for October 31, 1996, and January 1998....but
we won't go into<BR>> that ;-)<BR>> <BR>> >there is a world of
difference between "one namespace with <BR>> >multiple sets of
servers" and "multiple namespaces". and as <BR>> >anyone who has
read this far knows, there is a world of <BR>> >difference between a
deliberately stale root zone and an <BR>> >amended root zone.<BR>>
<BR>> There is an important difference between what ORSN is doing and
what<BR>> prior alt.root people did. But if the USG does something that
causes<BR>> ORSN's root to diverge - and you cannot deny that that
possibility is<BR>> one of the stated motives of creating ORSN -
from the standpoint of<BR>> global namespace compatiblity, the two
are not different at all.<BR>> <BR>> >mr. mueller is not the first
wisher-for-alternate-roots who has <BR>> >mistaken my support for ORSN
as being supportive of their <BR>> >positions, but i hope that the end
of that baggage train is near.<BR>> <BR>> Mr. Mueller (me) has never
"wished for" alternate roots per se. Mr.<BR>> Mueller has as a social
scientist insisted that 1) they are possible<BR>> and<BR>> we should
talk about them, 2) there could be justifiable reasons for<BR>> setting
one up, or at least not to make them illegal, and 3) that we<BR>> should
analyze and understand their economics and in particular the way<BR>>
they affect DNS compatiblity. I think current events and in particular<BR>
> your "support" for ORSN have just proven that I was right about 2).
Now<BR>> if you'd read the rest of my work on the subject, you might find
my<BR>> contributions around 3) interesting.<BR>> <BR>> >i'm not
siding with them.<BR>> <BR>> Your own article said you were
"participating" in the Project. You have<BR>> publicly associated with
them, adding considerably to their visilbity<BR>> and credibility. You
use the words "helping" and "supporting" them. You<BR>> could easily have
ignored them, but did not. If you want to say you are<BR>> not "siding"
with them, it's fine with me, but I suspect this<BR>> distinction won't
matter to anyone but you. Let's not waste any more<BR>> time on semantic
debates of that sort, ok?<BR>> <BR>> And hey, I think what you are
doing makes a lot of sense. So relax.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> governance mailing
list<BR>> governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>>
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance<BR></DIV>
</BODY></HTML>