Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1261
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, June 6 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1261

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 08:05:40 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

Yes, but the fact that U.S. registrars aren't screening the country fields
of their registration templates against the U.S. Treasury regulations
doesn't mean that they're in compliance with the law. They're all in
violation. It's trivially easy to do the screening, and sooner or later some
registrar (or other Internet company doing business globally) is going to
wind up in Court, or worse. -- Bret

Asaad Y. Alnajjar - Millennium Inc. 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.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:50:32 +0100
From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Redelegation issues

> Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 03:07:37 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [ga] Redelegation issues
>
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, at 11:44 [=GMT-0400], Michael Froomkin - U.Miami
School...:

[...]

> > Thus, if a country wants to regulate its ccTLD, it may.  If it wants to
> > nationalize it, it may subject to international norms on
nationalizations.
> >
> > But it can't *make* me do anything if I live abroad unless I choose to.
> >
> > Suppose country X tortures a ccTLD admin into agreeing to a
redelegation.
> > I think it might be perfectly appropriate to ignore that.
>
> Although I value your ideas and decisions, in this case it might be more
> interesting, especially for the immediate consequences, what the
> administrators of the following nameservers for ZA do:
>
> *za.                     2D IN NS        AUTH00.NS.UU.NET.
> za.                     2D IN NS        UCTHPX.UCT.AC.za.
> *za.                     2D IN NS        MUNNARI.OZ.AU.
> *za.                     2D IN NS        NS.EU.NET.
> *za.                     2D IN NS        FLAG.EP.NET.
> *za.                     2D IN NS        RAIN.PSG.COM.
> za.                     2D IN NS        APIES.FRD.AC.za.
> za.                     2D IN NS        HIPPO.RU.AC.za.
>
> Those marked * (5 out of 8) are not even _near_ South Africa...
>

[...]

> So, what should be our position, and more importantly, of those that run
> the above mentioned servers, and the root zone (ICANN, USG)?
>

I think there is a misunderstanding about the DNS here.
ICANN specifies the root servers for each country TLD.

If ICANN specified a root server for the ZA zone that was not run by
Mike Lawrie's organization, the above secondary servers would *not*
appear in the government-run root DNS server for ZA. In other words,
what the owners of the above servers do will have no incidence on the
ZA domain. At most, there will be a period of a few hours, a couple
of days at most, when the network's DNS will be unstable, but that's
all.

I believe that Mike's point is that his organization has forged links
with a number of other organizations that are extremely well distributed
around the globe, thus making the ZA TLD as stable as can be. This may
not be the case if the ZA government takes over.

For information about the background and birth of the Internet in South
Africa, I suggest people read the info on the Network Startup Resource
Center:

http://www.nsrc.org/db/lookup/ISO=ZA

Cheers,

- --
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D. |--> Global Information Highway Limited
E-mail:<[email-masked]> | Tel:+44 (0)7956 84 1113 | Fax:+44 (0)20 7937 7666
Web: http://www.gih.com/ & http://www.nsrc.org/codes/country-codes.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 17:52:54 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, at 08:05 [=GMT-0700], Bret Fausett wrote:

> Yes, but the fact that U.S. registrars aren't screening the country fields
> of their registration templates against the U.S. Treasury regulations
> doesn't mean that they're in compliance with the law. They're all in
> violation. It's trivially easy to do the screening, and sooner or later some
> registrar (or other Internet company doing business globally) is going to
> wind up in Court, or worse. -- Bret

Or worse? Hang them? I think this is a lot adoo about nothing. It is not
something they could use for misiles, is it?

> Asaad Y. Alnajjar - Millennium Inc. 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.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 13:03:47 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

Elisabeth,  the other day you wrote:  ICANN's Bylaws consider ccTLDs as one 
of the seven partners of the DNSO, which relates to the gTLD space.

Is my understanding correct that the ccTLDs (through non-payment of dues) 
have already forfeited their voting rights within the DNSO?  When do the 
ccTLDs officially intend to depart the DNSO?  

Hopefully, we'll continue to have the benefit of your commentary on the GA 
list...
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 13:18:47 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

>
> Or worse? Hang them? I think this is a lot adoo about nothing. It is not
> something they could use for misiles, is it?

In fact, it most certainly is what they are doing.

At this page for aluminum vendors and sellers:
http://www.procurealuminum.com/buyersboard/apr2001/
you will find a party with an uruklink.net (Iraqi state-owned domain) email
address requesting information on purchasing aluminum shafts.

Below is an email message which I have copied from the Aircraft Builder's
Mailing List. I have deleted the identity of the recipient of the message,
but the rest of the message is verbatim as sent from an uruklink.net email
address. As background information, you should be aware of Iraq's L-29
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle program....

http://www.rferl.org/iraq-report/2001/03/6-020301.html

- ----- Original Message -----
From: [email-masked]
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 3:48 AM
Subject: [abml] unmanned aircraft

Dear Friends:

I am a sudanese student . I had been stuying in Egypt until , 1999
where I got my ( Bsc & Msc ) in Aeronautical Engineer,( Aircraft  Design )
. Nowadays  I am  a PhD student  in University of Science and Technology (
Amman - Jordan ) .I completed two semesters in the first year of the PhD
course and now I am preparing for my project research. The title of my
research  is ( The Sructural Design of Unmanned Aircraft ) . I am looking
for  any data and dimensions / or a known data and dimensions of a
specified (unmanned aircraft ) , which allow me to define the geometry of
the specified aircraft as an input  data file , for a computer program (
which I will  build later) . The  output of this program will be the
aerodynamic loads which  are to be applied on the aircraft structure. The
validity of the computer program is to be compared with a known panel code
sofware .The aircraft structure is to be modelled in a 3-dimentional
drawing using (AutoCAD ) and then perform the necessary stress analysis
using the well known Finite Element software ( NASTRAN ).An optimization
process will be performed until  the best configuration is obtained .As
another step is, to check the stability  of the optimized  aircraft .Now
this optimized aircraft will be build in a scaled model and then a wind
tunnel tests will be performed  . The obtained results will be compared
with those of the computer program.This is  the general idea of my project.

Really I miss the necessary informations that enable me to start.I
have alot theory and some photos about unmanned aerial vehicles which I
have collected from different websites . I need to know about the airframe
structural design , the wing characteristics( roor & tip chords, planform,
/ dihedral ,incidence , sweep angles,) aerofoil NACA / Fuselage
,diameter,nose, control surfaces, landing gears type,material of structure
.fiber reinforced composites, aircraft growth weight ,and the necessary
guidances that help me in general to design and construct my proposed
aircraft.Your advises and guidances will be of great beneficial for me.

I would be appreciate if you kindly help me about that..

Thank you very much for your help.

TARIQ
E-mail:[email-masked]

So, if you are feeling in a helpful mood, then I'm sure Tariq would
appreciate all the suggestions you can send him.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 19:47:28 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Redelegation issues

On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, at 16:50 [=GMT+0100], Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

> > Although I value your ideas and decisions, in this case it might be more
> > interesting, especially for the immediate consequences, what the
> > administrators of the following nameservers for ZA do:
> >
> > *za.                     2D IN NS        AUTH00.NS.UU.NET.
> > za.                     2D IN NS        UCTHPX.UCT.AC.za.
> > *za.                     2D IN NS        MUNNARI.OZ.AU.
> > *za.                     2D IN NS        NS.EU.NET.
> > *za.                     2D IN NS        FLAG.EP.NET.
> > *za.                     2D IN NS        RAIN.PSG.COM.
> > za.                     2D IN NS        APIES.FRD.AC.za.
> > za.                     2D IN NS        HIPPO.RU.AC.za.
> >
> > Those marked * (5 out of 8) are not even _near_ South Africa...
> >
>
> [...]
>
> > So, what should be our position, and more importantly, of those that run
> > the above mentioned servers, and the root zone (ICANN, USG)?
> >
>
> I think there is a misunderstanding about the DNS here.
> ICANN specifies the root servers for each country TLD.
>
> If ICANN specified a root server for the ZA zone that was not run by
> Mike Lawrie's organization, the above secondary servers would *not*
> appear in the government-run root DNS server for ZA. In other words,
> what the owners of the above servers do will have no incidence on the
> ZA domain. At most, there will be a period of a few hours, a couple
> of days at most, when the network's DNS will be unstable, but that's
> all.

What is the average time ICANN needs to change ccTLD nameservers in the
root zone? Not hours, not days, not weeks...

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 19:57:36 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, at 13:18 [=GMT-0400], John Berryhill wrote:

> > Or worse? Hang them? I think this is a lot adoo about nothing. It is not
> > something they could use for misiles, is it?
>
> In fact, it most certainly is what they are doing.
>
> At this page for aluminum vendors and sellers:
> http://www.procurealuminum.com/buyersboard/apr2001/
> you will find a party with an uruklink.net (Iraqi state-owned domain) email
> address requesting information on purchasing aluminum shafts.
>
> Below is an email message which I have copied from the Aircraft Builder's
> Mailing List. I have deleted the identity of the recipient of the message,
> but the rest of the message is verbatim as sent from an uruklink.net email
> address. As background information, you should be aware of Iraq's L-29
> Unmanned Aerial Vehicle program....

I would say that it is quite fortunate that they use a domain that is
known to be related to them. Makes it easier to track their doings...
In fact I am afraid that terrorists are more clever than using a
suspicious domain name for their email. That is why I think this
discussion is about nothing.

> http://www.rferl.org/iraq-report/2001/03/6-020301.html
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: [email-masked]
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 3:48 AM
> Subject: [abml] unmanned aircraft
>
> Dear Friends:
>
> I am a sudanese student . I had been stuying in Egypt until , 1999
> where I got my ( Bsc & Msc ) in Aeronautical Engineer,( Aircraft  Design )
> . Nowadays  I am  a PhD student  in University of Science and Technology (
> Amman - Jordan ) .I completed two semesters in the first year of the PhD
> course and now I am preparing for my project research. The title of my
> research  is ( The Sructural Design of Unmanned Aircraft ) . I am looking
> for  any data and dimensions / or a known data and dimensions of a
> specified (unmanned aircraft ) , which allow me to define the geometry of
> the specified aircraft as an input  data file , for a computer program (
> which I will  build later) . The  output of this program will be the
> aerodynamic loads which  are to be applied on the aircraft structure. The
> validity of the computer program is to be compared with a known panel code
> sofware .The aircraft structure is to be modelled in a 3-dimentional
> drawing using (AutoCAD ) and then perform the necessary stress analysis
> using the well known Finite Element software ( NASTRAN ).An optimization
> process will be performed until  the best configuration is obtained .As
> another step is, to check the stability  of the optimized  aircraft .Now
> this optimized aircraft will be build in a scaled model and then a wind
> tunnel tests will be performed  . The obtained results will be compared
> with those of the computer program.This is  the general idea of my project.
>
> Really I miss the necessary informations that enable me to start.I
> have alot theory and some photos about unmanned aerial vehicles which I
> have collected from different websites . I need to know about the airframe
> structural design , the wing characteristics( roor & tip chords, planform,
> / dihedral ,incidence , sweep angles,) aerofoil NACA / Fuselage
> ,diameter,nose, control surfaces, landing gears type,material of structure
> .fiber reinforced composites, aircraft growth weight ,and the necessary
> guidances that help me in general to design and construct my proposed
> aircraft.Your advises and guidances will be of great beneficial for me.
>
> I would be appreciate if you kindly help me about that..
>
> Thank you very much for your help.
>
> TARIQ
> E-mail:[email-masked]
>
>
> So, if you are feeling in a helpful mood, then I'm sure Tariq would
> appreciate all the suggestions you can send him.
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 19:17:19 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

David Farrar wrote:

> >
> >Quite frankly, if ICANN staff are negotiating ccTLD contracts with these
> >countries, then they had better get a license from the U.S. Treasury, or
> >they should be arrested and imprisoned.
>
>Which is a good reason for ICANN not to be based in the US.
>

The point is not where they are based, but what is the legal jurisdiction. 
The UN are based in NewYork, but they act based on international treaties, 
which is not the case for ICANN.

Some of the cases listed are of countries where the embargo is based on 
international law (embargo decided by the UN), but we would have eliminated 
the absurdity of unilateral embargoes decided by a single country and not 
endorsed by the international community, like for instance US vs. Cuba, 
affecting the presence of the country on the international network 
(InterNet).

So the real question would be: Should ICANN be acting under international 
treaties, not under US law. Of course, with such outstanding international 
representativeness of ICANN, the chances of getting international status are 
pretty slim, I would say....

Best regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 22:00:37 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

- --=======733EE15=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-104A62DD; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

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 [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --=======733EE15=======--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:33:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

[cc's trimmed]

I hear this a lot.  I wonder if it's right.  Might be, but on balance, 
I'll bet not.  Why?

1. It might mess up whatever traffic analysis the US is doing.

2. Dissidents will get at least as much use of the local net, with less
chance to route around, so it's an asset as well as a liability.

3. This is an option that the US must understand can only be used once
before the EU sets up its own root.  I bet they decide this one isn't
worth it.

Meanwhile, I'd appreciate learning more (links?) about what ICANN did/is
doing to help out the ccTLD's.  It's always nice to get good news.  I'd
happily publish it at ICANNWatch.

On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:

> 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 [email-masked] list.
> >Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 21:39:23 +0100
From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Redelegation issues

>From: "Marc Schneiders" <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 6:47 PM
>Subject: Re: [ga] Redelegation issues

[...]

> 
> What is the average time ICANN needs to change ccTLD nameservers in the
> root zone? Not hours, not days, not weeks...
> 

If ICANN decides to change ccTLD nameservers in the root zone,
they can do this instantaneously, and the root zone will get updated
within 24 hours. However, the DNS is such that in order to reduce
DNS-related traffic, nameservers cache information that they hold.
It takes a certain amount of time for the information to therefore get
propagated across the network, and it is this time of propagation
which makes the network unstable since some nameservers will
still think that the old root for ZA is in use.

For ZA, the information is currently:

>Authoritative answers can be found from:
>za
>        origin = apies.frd.ac.za
>        mail addr = mlawrie.apies.nrf.ac.za
>        serial = 200206030   ( <- this is a serial number)
>        refresh = 21600 (6H) 
>        retry   = 3600 (1H)
>        expire  = 2592000 (4w2d)
>        minimum ttl = 86400 (1D)  

refresh = number of seconds between a check on the serial number on
the zone of the primary and the next attempt. here: 6 hours
retry = if a refresh attempt fails, it will retry after this amount of time
and here it is 1 hour
expire = if refresh and retry attempts fail what is the length of time
after which the server will stop serving the zone and here, surprise,
it has been set at 4 weeks and 2 days !!!
ttl = time to live. The time for a cached DNS record to stay cached
until it is purged. here it is 1 day

So as you can see, if a local nameserver has cached information
pertaining to the root ZA zone, there is a period of time it will still
interrogate the old nameservers (including secondary nameservers
for the zone) even though ICANN has re-delegated the zone to another 
root. 
This introduces instability because the reply that will be given when 
interrogating the nameservers may be non-authoritative (cached, and 
providing a pointer to an old nameserver) or authoritative (providing 
a pointer to a new nameserver). That's not good.

Of course, you may say "oh, but I thought that the DNS was designed
to withstand a thermo-nuclear war, so why is it so fragile when changing
root zone delegation?" Well, the DNS was never designed with the
idea of changing root servers in mind. As you can see from above, it is
designed to keep name <-> IP Number translation stable even though
the authoritative root nameserver could be off-line for an extended time.
It plays for stability when parameters do not change, but instability
when they do change, especially when it is a drastic step of changing
root altogether.

I hope this helps.

Cheers,

- --
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D. |--> Global Information Highway Limited
E-mail:<[email-masked]> | Tel:+44 (0)7956 84 1113 | Fax:+44 (0)20 7937 7666
Web: http://www.gih.com/ & http://www.nsrc.org/codes/country-codes.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 17:27:04 -0400
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C20CB6.3631A6C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

that is an incredibly irresponsible statement to make jefsey and has =
absolutely no basis
in fact..

ken stubbs

  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin=20
  To: John Berryhill ; Asaad Y. Alnajjar - Millennium Inc. ; [email-masked] =

  Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 4:00 PM
  Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

  Dear Asaad,
  I am afraid that John is right. This is why I did not respond to Karl =
about=20
  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=20
  certainly be updated to US Arrmy name servers and the IPs of the local =
ISPs=20
  wuold be black holed. So not one from Iraq could access the net and no =
one=20
  from outside Iraq could access .iq sites.

- ------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C20CB6.3631A6C0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>that is an incredibly irresponsible statement to =
make jefsey=20
and has absolutely no basis</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>in fact..</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>ken stubbs</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
  <DIV=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
  <A title=[email-masked] =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">J-F C.=20
  (Jefsey) Morfin</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">John Berryhill</A> ; <A=20
  title=[email-masked] =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">Asaad Y.=20
  Alnajjar - Millennium Inc.</A> ; <A title=[email-masked]=20
  href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, June 05, 2002 =
4:00=20
  PM</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [ga] Re: =
Redelegation=20
  issues</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT><BR></DIV>Dear Asaad,<BR>I am afraid that =
John is=20
  right. This is why I did not respond to Karl about <BR>the choice of =
the USA=20
  to land the ICANN in its present formulation.<BR><BR>But let be =
clearer;=20
  should the USA decide to attack Iraq, be sure that <BR>there would be =
some=20
  up-dates into the root file. The ".iq" entries would <BR>certainly be =
updated=20
  to US Arrmy name servers and the IPs of the local ISPs <BR>wuold be =
black=20
  holed. So not one from Iraq could access the net and no one <BR>from =
outside=20
  Iraq could access .iq sites.<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C20CB6.3631A6C0--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 18:02:09 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Upcoming Hearings on ICANN

As reported on ICANNWatch, the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee 
on Science and Technology will hold a hearing on ICANN on June 12 at 2:30.  
For those members of the GA interested in submitting comments to the public 
record, correspondence may be directed to [email-masked]

The Committee may also be reached by Fax at (202) 228-2339 or by telephone at 
(202) 224-0415 

A list of all Committee members may be found at 
http://www.senate.gov/~commerce/subcmte.htm#STS

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 15:03:12 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

Marc Schneiders wrote:
> Or worse? Hang them? I think this is a lot adoo about nothing.

Here's worse for you...they could find the intellectual property
constituency on their tail. Remember the folks at Movie88.com who streamed
thousands of unlicensed movies over the Internet for $1.00 each? The MPAA
shut it down. So the folks behind it moved to Iran. And registered
"film88.com" ...with Verisign Registrar. Today's featured streaming movie is
"Harry Potter." 

More at: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/05/2037201

  -- Bret 

Registrant:
Hami, Hali (QSFENHTSUD)
   216 Ostad Nejatollahi Ave.
   Tehran, Iran 1598751314
   IR

   Domain Name: FILM88.COM

   Administrative Contact:
      Hami, Hali  (ZARYJOHMEI)        [email-masked]
      Hami,Hali
      216 Ostad Nejatollahi Ave.
      Tehran, Iran  15987??`?51314
      IR
      98218903252 123 123 1234
   Technical Contact:
      VeriSign, Inc.  (HOST-ORG)        [email-masked]
      VeriSign, Inc.
      21355 Ridgetop Circle
      Dulles, VA 20166
      US
      1-888-642-9675 fax: - [email-masked]

   Record expires on 18-Apr-2005.
   Record created on 18-Apr-2002.
   Database last updated on 5-Jun-2002 17:55:12 EDT.

   Domain servers in listed order:

   NSIR1.FILM88.COM             213.29.62.33
   NSIR2.FILM88.COM             213.29.62.36

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1261
*************************