On 2012-03-31, at 06:00, Sam Russell wrote:

I enjoyed the article, but it really made me wonder whether this would be happening if the gTLD servers weren't under US jurisdiction

What are "the gTLD servers", and why do you think they are related to the threat that article was talking about? Joe

Hi Sam, There are 13 Root Servers serving the entire TLD structure of the Internet (both ccTLDs and gTLDs), and also these root servers also resolve the top level of IP Adressing, and some other databases. The 13 Root Servers are numbered A through to M, and mostly are based in the USA. There are hundreds of instances of mirrors of these root servers, including a couple in NZ. The IANA function is contracted by the US Government, since 1999 the contract has been with ICANN, and there is a 3 way agreement and process between US Government, ICANN and Verisign, to publish the IANA database on the A Root Server. The other 12 Root Servers pick up the database / zone file from the A Root. To date, to my knowledge, the Root Server Operators have not failed to replicate the IANA database. Furthermore, to date, the US Government could be seen to be the "careful custodian" of the IANA database, with their checking of ICANNs updates to the database confined to ensuring the changes do not threaten the stability of the Internet - and generally free from any political or US-centric legal interference. Cheers Keith On 1/04/2012 8:41 a.m., Sam Russell wrote:

The article said there are only 13 root servers so I'm not sure that the article was sure what it's talking about.

The controversy at the moment seems to be the extradition of the 23-year-old admin of tvshack.net to the USA. The server wasn't hosted in the USA, but having a .net domain meant that he could be tried under US law. As a generic top level domain (gTLD), a .net domain shouldn't be bound by the whims of any one country, but only by ICANN/IANA.

The problem is that the gTLDs are all hosted in the USA, and judges are interpreting this to mean that websites with gTLDs are bound by US law. This is the same as if the printing of our phone books was outsourced to China, and then China extraditing the Tibetian embassy because their phone number is in a Chinese-printed phone book.

tl;dr 60+ year old judges don't know how the Internet works, and this is just the next part of the slippery slope that geo-IP boundaries have put us on

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 1, 2012, at 6:28 AM, Joe Abley wrote:

...

On 2012-03-31, at 06:00, Sam Russell wrote:

...

I enjoyed the article, but it really made me wonder whether this would be happening if the gTLD servers weren't under US jurisdiction

What are "the gTLD servers", and why do you think they are related to the threat that article was talking about?

Joe

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4905 - Release Date: 03/30/12

Hi Joe, Wasn't too bad guess work from a non-techie like me! I was trying to avoid links to ICANN or the US Govt, just in case readers suspected either or both were part of their favourite evil empire... Cheers Keith On 1/04/2012 10:05 a.m., Joe Abley wrote:

On 2012-03-31, at 17:37, Keith Davidson wrote:

...

There are 13 Root Servers serving the entire TLD structure of the Internet (both ccTLDs and gTLDs), and also these root servers also resolve the top level of IP Adressing, and some other databases. The 13 Root Servers are numbered A through to M, and mostly are based in the USA. There are hundreds of instances of mirrors of these root servers, including a couple in NZ.

The IANA function is contracted by the US Government, since 1999 the contract has been with ICANN, and there is a 3 way agreement and process between US Government, ICANN and Verisign, to publish the IANA database on the A Root Server. The other 12 Root Servers pick up the database / zone file from the A Root.

That's pretty close, but for a more exact description see supporting text included in "Scaling the Root" ("Report on the Impact on the DNS Root System of Increasing the Size and Volatility of the Root Zone") published in 2009:

http://www.icann.org/en/groups/rssac/root-scaling-study-report-31aug09-en.pd...

The description of root zone distribution in that document is pretty comprehensive.

Joe

----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4907 - Release Date: 03/31/12

There are indeed precisely 13 root servers. See http://www.root-servers.org/. I think you're confusing root servers with authority-only servers for TLD zones, and a purported threat against the root servers with domain take-downs ordered by particular nations' law-enforcement. If you want a domain with a registry managed in a local jurisdiction, go talk to NZRS. There exist gTLDs currently that are operated outside the US. Soon there apparently may be more. It's a mistake to think that Internet infrastructure is somehow exempt from the law. I won't contradict your legal analysis for the case you mentioned because I am not a lawyer, I don't know the facts of the case and (last but not least!) this is an operations list. Sent from my Ono-Sendai Cyberspace 7 On 2012-03-31, at 16:41, Sam Russell wrote:

The article said there are only 13 root servers so I'm not sure that the article was sure what it's talking about.

The controversy at the moment seems to be the extradition of the 23-year-old admin of tvshack.net to the USA. The server wasn't hosted in the USA, but having a .net domain meant that he could be tried under US law. As a generic top level domain (gTLD), a .net domain shouldn't be bound by the whims of any one country, but only by ICANN/IANA.

The problem is that the gTLDs are all hosted in the USA, and judges are interpreting this to mean that websites with gTLDs are bound by US law. This is the same as if the printing of our phone books was outsourced to China, and then China extraditing the Tibetian embassy because their phone number is in a Chinese-printed phone book.

tl;dr 60+ year old judges don't know how the Internet works, and this is just the next part of the slippery slope that geo-IP boundaries have put us on

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 1, 2012, at 6:28 AM, Joe Abley wrote:

...

On 2012-03-31, at 06:00, Sam Russell wrote:

...

I enjoyed the article, but it really made me wonder whether this would be happening if the gTLD servers weren't under US jurisdiction

What are "the gTLD servers", and why do you think they are related to the threat that article was talking about?

Joe

Hi Sam, Good question relating to the law, perhaps best not to try and answer that on a technical list. Currently, the closest thing to global "law" applicable to the Internet is the RFC process, developed by techies in a bottom-up, consensus based global decision making forum via the Internet Engineering Task Force. Fortunately most RFC's set to provide technical standards rather than seeking to set global public policy or law (for example RFC1591 seeks boldly to establish some aspects of public policy as it relates to the operation of TLDs in general and ccTLDs in particular) So which law applies is a truly difficult question, and while there are cases where a US Court (or a French Court commonly also) requires an action from an organisation or individual outside its jurisdiction, or where the Registrar is domiciled, etc, but it may be that the Court in the country where the individual / organisation resides may have a contrary opinion - so nothing is predictable and as the Internet challenges the geographical boundaries, there is much to be done and many more test cases to go before we can categorically determine what laws apply when and to whom. I don't know much of the details of this specific case, but as I understand it, the tvshack.net case is because the Registrar (the agent who sold the tvshack.net name to Richard O'Dwyer) is USA based, not because Verisign (the .net Registry) is US based. In any case, Verisigns operation of their Root Server is not related to their operation of the .com or .net registries. In this case too, the site was hosted in Sweden. Conceivably, the UK Court may refuse to extradite O'Dwyer, and also conceivably the Swedish and/or UK Courts may order the US Government to reinstate the domain name. Its just at the first step of legal proceedings currently. The US law enforcement folks are running rampant on many other cases currently, Megaupload and Kim Dotcom for a local example. Again, maybe the NZ Court will find no case to answer and strike out the extradition order? Who knows... ICANN, ISOC and others are seeking to establish and maintain global policies applicable to aspects of the Internet and operation of the DNS, based on the multistakeholder model and consensus based decision making. While slow and ponderous it is preferable to having treaty organisations such as the UN or the ITU creating globally binding policies applicable to the DNS. Cheers Keith On 1/04/2012 10:51 a.m., Sam Russell wrote:

"It's a mistake to think that Internet infrastructure is somehow exempt from the law." - which law? TVShack was hosted in the UK, complied with UK law, but the judges have ruled that having a .net domain means that the website has to comply with US law. This is only possible because Verisign are in charge of the .net gTLD,

My confusion around the root servers was assuming that there are, for example, 95 L servers, instead of 95 instances of the 1 L server. I'm not sure why anonymous would be attacking root servers though - I imagine they're more angry about US-mandated takedowns of .com and .net domain names that don't violate any of ICANN's rules, and the extension of this to actually extraditing citizens of other countries.

Is this something that ICANN has, or should have, policy around?

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Joe Abley mailto:jabley(a)hopcount.ca> wrote:

There are indeed precisely 13 root servers. See http://www.root-servers.org/.

I think you're confusing root servers with authority-only servers for TLD zones, and a purported threat against the root servers with domain take-downs ordered by particular nations' law-enforcement.

If you want a domain with a registry managed in a local jurisdiction, go talk to NZRS. There exist gTLDs currently that are operated outside the US. Soon there apparently may be more.

It's a mistake to think that Internet infrastructure is somehow exempt from the law.

I won't contradict your legal analysis for the case you mentioned because I am not a lawyer, I don't know the facts of the case and (last but not least!) this is an operations list.

Sent from my Ono-Sendai Cyberspace 7

On 2012-03-31, at 16:41, Sam Russell mailto:sam.russell(a)reannz.co.nz> wrote:

> The article said there are only 13 root servers so I'm not sure that > the article was sure what it's talking about. > > The controversy at the moment seems to be the extradition of the > 23-year-old admin of tvshack.net http://tvshack.net to the USA. The server wasn't hosted > in the USA, but having a .net domain meant that he could be tried > under US law. As a generic top level domain (gTLD), a .net domain > shouldn't be bound by the whims of any one country, but only by > ICANN/IANA. > > The problem is that the gTLDs are all hosted in the USA, and judges > are interpreting this to mean that websites with gTLDs are bound by US > law. This is the same as if the printing of our phone books was > outsourced to China, and then China extraditing the Tibetian embassy > because their phone number is in a Chinese-printed phone book. > > tl;dr 60+ year old judges don't know how the Internet works, and this > is just the next part of the slippery slope that geo-IP boundaries > have put us on > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 1, 2012, at 6:28 AM, Joe Abley mailto:jabley(a)hopcount.ca> wrote: > >> >> On 2012-03-31, at 06:00, Sam Russell wrote: >> >>> I enjoyed the article, but it really made me wonder whether this would be happening if the gTLD servers weren't under US jurisdiction >> >> What are "the gTLD servers", and why do you think they are related to the threat that article was talking about? >> >> >> Joe >> >

-- Sam Russell

Network Operations Research & Education Advanced Network NZ Ltd ddi: +64 4 913 6365 mob: +64 21 750 819 fax: +64 4 916 0064

http://www.karen.net.nz http://www.karen.net.nz/

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4907 - Release Date: 03/31/12

Forgive me adding to this Off Topic thread but a few points do need correcting: As much as I hold Ars in high regard - their reporting on this is only an opinion peace (no first-person facts) We can all read the judges verdict http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/us-v-odwyer-ru... 1. Having a .net domain name had nothing to do with the extradition. It did allow the US to pull the domain name which is a different problem. 2. The judge approved extradition because the _alleged_ offenses were "extraditable" enough. The offenses were a crime in the UK as well as US. The offenses if prosecuted in the UK were criminal with enough possible penalty to be extraditable. Extradition law is not that you prove your case then if guilty spend time in a US prison, extradition is just checking if the US have an allegation that is valid, then go to the US to prove your case there. 3. The lesson to take from this, Kim Dotcom, and Al Capone, is the money is what will get you. If you have advertising on your site and are receiving funds from "Americans" then generally the long arm of the US will get you because what may have just been a civil infringement quickly becomes money laundering which is extraditable everywhere. Remember they dont have to prove you guilty to extradite you, just that they have a reasonable case. Regards, Joel van Velden On 1/04/2012 10:51 a.m., Sam Russell wrote:

"It's a mistake to think that Internet infrastructure is somehow exempt from the law." - which law? TVShack was hosted in the UK, complied with UK law, but the judges have ruled that having a .net domain means that the website has to comply with US law. This is only possible because Verisign are in charge of the .net gTLD,

My confusion around the root servers was assuming that there are, for example, 95 L servers, instead of 95 instances of the 1 L server. I'm not sure why anonymous would be attacking root servers though - I imagine they're more angry about US-mandated takedowns of .com and .net domain names that don't violate any of ICANN's rules, and the extension of this to actually extraditing citizens of other countries.

Is this something that ICANN has, or should have, policy around?

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Joe Abley mailto:jabley(a)hopcount.ca> wrote:

There are indeed precisely 13 root servers. See http://www.root-servers.org/.

I think you're confusing root servers with authority-only servers for TLD zones, and a purported threat against the root servers with domain take-downs ordered by particular nations' law-enforcement.

If you want a domain with a registry managed in a local jurisdiction, go talk to NZRS. There exist gTLDs currently that are operated outside the US. Soon there apparently may be more.

It's a mistake to think that Internet infrastructure is somehow exempt from the law.

I won't contradict your legal analysis for the case you mentioned because I am not a lawyer, I don't know the facts of the case and (last but not least!) this is an operations list.

Sent from my Ono-Sendai Cyberspace 7

On 2012-03-31, at 16:41, Sam Russell mailto:sam.russell(a)reannz.co.nz> wrote:

> The article said there are only 13 root servers so I'm not sure that > the article was sure what it's talking about. > > The controversy at the moment seems to be the extradition of the > 23-year-old admin of tvshack.net http://tvshack.net to the USA. The server wasn't hosted > in the USA, but having a .net domain meant that he could be tried > under US law. As a generic top level domain (gTLD), a .net domain > shouldn't be bound by the whims of any one country, but only by > ICANN/IANA. > > The problem is that the gTLDs are all hosted in the USA, and judges > are interpreting this to mean that websites with gTLDs are bound by US > law. This is the same as if the printing of our phone books was > outsourced to China, and then China extraditing the Tibetian embassy > because their phone number is in a Chinese-printed phone book. > > tl;dr 60+ year old judges don't know how the Internet works, and this > is just the next part of the slippery slope that geo-IP boundaries > have put us on > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 1, 2012, at 6:28 AM, Joe Abley mailto:jabley(a)hopcount.ca> wrote: > >> >> On 2012-03-31, at 06:00, Sam Russell wrote: >> >>> I enjoyed the article, but it really made me wonder whether this would be happening if the gTLD servers weren't under US jurisdiction >> >> What are "the gTLD servers", and why do you think they are related to the threat that article was talking about? >> >> >> Joe >> >

-- Sam Russell

Network Operations Research & Education Advanced Network NZ Ltd ddi: +64 4 913 6365 mob: +64 21 750 819 fax: +64 4 916 0064

http://www.karen.net.nz http://www.karen.net.nz/

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog