<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<br>
On Saturday 23 June 2012 09:17 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF3CE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;">Parminder,<br>
<br>
What I believe McTim and I, and David, are saying, is that the
sledgehammer cannot be directed.<br>
<br>
Messing with the root zone file in any way - always - would hit
everyone's fingers.<br>
<br>
It would be the opposite of 'maintaining stability of the net.'<br>
<br>
And, OFAC would have that explained to them in whatever way works,
metaphorically or not, should they ever attempt to go there, by NTIA,
and others.<br>
<br>
So yeah, again, totally understand why others might be nervous about
the sledgehammer lying in the corner, we're all just saying - it's too
heavy for anyone to try to pick up.
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
How does the same sledgehammer suddenly and mysteriously become so easy
to wield when the proposed oversight model is international? Just
mention with any seriousness a word about an international oversight
and you'd hear loud and shrill voices about the sledgehammer just so
ready to be used in the most devious ways. My point is simple, there
are much better and stronger safeguards with an international
oversight, based on international law, than the present US based
system. And at least non US people have no reason to like the present
system, including for its symbolic significance.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF3CE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;"><br>
Which again, is not to say that some global circle of friends holding
hands stopping each other from ever going to that corner would not be a
better thing.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
That is all the whole discussion is about. If we agree on this, I dont
see what we are disagreeing on.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF3CE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;"><br>
But until Norbert's hypothetical ECTF issues its RFA's - you'll have to
rely on President Reagan's old joke - I'm from the (US) government and
I'm here to help. ; )
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Meanwhile, I mean to keep voicing my opposition to the extant
situation, which indeed is as expressed in Reagan's quote, every time
anyone seems like defending it, even if apologetically :)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF3CE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;"><br>
Lee<br>
<div
style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF41463"><font size="2"
color="#000000" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> parminder
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, June 23, 2012 10:59 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Lee W McKnight<br>
<b>Cc:</b> McTim; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; Louis Pouzin (well)<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing
for a "Autonomous Internet" ?<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Lee<br>
<br>
To make things clear from my side, what I am trying to do is to show is
that;<br>
<br>
for the US government to act, if it does choose to act, to interfere
with the root in a manner that *only* affects some or even all
foreigners (and not US citizens) is so much easier, and already
provided in the law, than to do a similar thing within the US,
affecting US citizens. The latter may require something like the so
called Internet Kill Switch Bill, for US gov to be able to interfere in
such a basic way with the Internet within the US. However, for US to do
so for select countries it chooses to target, it is so much easier.</font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">That is why I brought in the OFAC
regime into our discussion.
</font><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Dont you see this
situation as problematic. It is, to those outside the US.<br>
<br>
Now, when the US citizens have a right to raise such a outcry as they
did against giving sweeping powers to the US President regarding
possibly even switching off the Internet, why do our friends in the US
think that those outside the US are
</font><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">simply </font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">being over-sensitive is trying to
see that the US gov does not hold a similar metaphorical sledgehammer
over their 'foreign' heads. They have a much greater right to be
worried because the US President is not even their President. Dont you
think so? Why these differential standards?<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font><br>
On Saturday 23 June 2012 08:08 PM, parminder wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<br>
On Saturday 23 June 2012 06:58 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Parminder,
Just to be superclear about this, you are either on the inter-net, or off. That's all that the root zone file signifies.
Being on the inter-net does not guarantee access to a particular - service or application -</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Lee, <br>
<br>
I am superclear about it. I surely know root zone file in about being
off or on the Internet, and quite different from availability of any
particular service over the Internet. Not sure, what made you believe I
was confused between the two.<br>
<br>
I only said, and I believe so, that the same US's OFAC regime that
applies to google services *can* very easily apply to any non profit or
even government agency providing root server and DNS kind of services
to the sanctioned countries. To quote their website, OFAC orders apply
to ' "All U.S. persons and entities (companies, non-profit groups,
government agencies, etc.) wherever located".
<br>
<br>
So you are wrong to claim that if OFAC wanted to hit the root server
services (or even domain name services like accepting cctld or new gtld
applications form the sanctioned countries) it would have to go around
persuading NTIA etc. In any case, in the kind of circumstances we are
talking about, all wings of the administration act as one. So OFAC and
NTIA would no doubt talk, but it will be the White House deciding.
<br>
<br>
(BTW, taking Iran's example, do see the manner how any OFAC diktat is
carefully and elaborately worded to suit US's short and long term
political and economic interests at
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/iran.pdf"
target="_blank">http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/iran.pdf</a>
and
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/internet_freedom.pdf"
target="_blank">http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/internet_freedom.pdf</a>
)<br>
<br>
As for the sledgehammer metaphor you employ, no one likes someone
standing with a sledgehammer over his/ their head, especially when
there is a way to get the holder of the sledgehammer to put it down.
Would you like it, if it were with you :)<br>
<br>
If one is not going to use the sledgehammer ever, there is no point on
insisting on holding it over other people's head, as US does in not
agreeing to internationalise 'oversight' of CIR management.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre> which can be unavailable for any number of reasons. Most commonly, not paying for it. Even for free services can be unavailable, for example because the provider is unable or is not bothering to extract ad revenue from particular geographies, for various reasons. So they don't want to bear the costs for the load on their own servers coming from areas they can't make $$ from. Typically though, most folks on the Internet will accept and send traffic anywhere, since the cost per - whatever - is so low.
Then there's cases of national-level filtering and blocking eg China's great firewall.
Or service provider-level filtering which could be in place for business reasons, or due to - national-level law.
But as McTim notes, all of those cases are separate matters entirely from the operation of the root-servers that are distributed on-off switches - metaphorically speaking.
Now to switch metaphors: )
Think really really heavy sledgehammer and a bee (from OFAC view).
Even if the US has been in conflict with Cuba of one sort or another for the past...50 years +.....you wouldn't think to try to swat the bee with the sledgehammer, since you would realize that it is far more likely that you would drop the sledgehammer on your own foot, than hit the bee.
Not to mention, OFAC has no permission or administrative authorization to pick up that sledgehammer.
According to US law and administrative practice, they would have to ask NTIA to please help them go after the US root zone operators; and/or would have to ask other governments to drop the sledgehammer on their own root-zone operators, since the bee's somewhere else.
There's sequences of improbable events which lead to worst-case scenarios, which can and do happen, and then there's - firebreaks, administrative procedures, and various levels of service above and beyond - being on the net.
Nonetheless, as I have previously noted, this is not to suggest I favor the USG still having its hands so close to - ICANN/IANA/Verisign's - expert finetuning fingers tweaking the rootzone file. Since yeah we can always imagine a sledgehammer being dropped, on our own hands/net.
Lee
________________________________________
From: McTim [<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com" target="_blank">dogwallah@gmail.com</a>]
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:34 AM
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; parminder
Cc: Lee W McKnight; Louis Pouzin (well)
Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ?
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:46 AM, parminder <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"
target="_blank"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>On other issue of, whether US gov can or could take unilateral steps with
regard to ICANN and root server management;
To take an example. if anyone tries to access the services of google
analytics from Cuba she is greeted by the following message (for the full
report see
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.webpronews.com/google-blocks-cuba-from-gaining-analytics-access-2012-06"
target="_blank">http://www.webpronews.com/google-blocks-cuba-from-gaining-analytics-access-2012-06</a>
)
We’re: unable to grant you access to Google Analytics at this time.
A connection Has Been Established Between your current IP address and
acountry sanctioned by the U.S. government. For more information, see
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/" target="_blank">http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/</a> .
Google Earth, Google’s Desktop Search tool and Google Code Search are
similarly blocked.
It is my understanding that a simple order from the Office of Foreign Assets
Control to ICANN/ Verisign could put provision of root server services to
Cuba and its nationals ( and those of some other countries) under similar
sanctions. That is how close we are to what many think is an impossible
calamity.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>Your understanding is flawed.
Serving the root is binary, a DNS root-operator either serves it or
they don't.
If you are talking about filtering routes, well that is done in
routing, and if an order
went to ICANN/Verisign, they have no way to command the other root-ops to
route filter based on IP range.
I doubt $current_employer (F) would filter as above, even though they
are a US 501(c) corp.
I am sure $former_employer (K) would not as they are not a US corp,
and have said as much (IIRC) during WSIS.
So Cubans would still get the root served to them.
--
Cheers,
McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>