Dear Olivier, Your draft is a good start but I agree with Avri and Eric's statement. Perhaps we can incorporate a paragraph that addresses the lacuna created on the Internet by the Egyptian Government's actions and highlights that such actions not only create network instability and go against human rights, but primarily hurt the Egyptian economy and the World's confidence in the Interim Government. Regards Cintra Sooknanan On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

...

On 1 Feb 2011, at 20:12, Vanda UOL wrote:

...

I can endorse it. More than this is out of the ICANN´s scope.

While I endorsed the statement, I do not believe that more is out of ICANN's scope, though I understand it is out of some people's comfort zone

It may be politically difficult for some, and it may be contrary to the political aims of others, but responding to this sort of attack on the Internet is what ICANN's scope as a steward is all about. ICANN should not remain silent on the issue of kill switches that render the network unstable. ICANN should not just bury its head when national actions cause properly assigned addresses and ASs to become unreachable because of political action, no matter who throws the switch or why. Whether it is Egypt's action last week, or US legislation later this year, rendering parts of the network inaccessible is something that ICANN cannot allow to happen while standing silently and idly by.

Avri,

I think I agree with you.

Anyway, a question from technical ignorance (as usual :-)). Are there technical implications for the rest of the Internet to causing ASs to become unreachable? The ISOC note covers some issues, but from ICANN/IANA perspective is this a bad thing. If yes, ICANN should comment, as should ALAC

In new TLD discussions around "offensive strings" often hear comments suggesting governments that don't like a tld could simply block it. I had heard, and this is really my question, that while blocking a TLD (cc or g) now has no technical impact on the global Internet, once all TLDs are DNSSEC signed such blocking might cause problems. I do not know the nature of the problems, significant or not (or even if real, I may have just misunderstood something). If there are technical implications now to actions such as Egypt's, or will be in the new future when tlds are DNSSEC signed, then it's within ICANN's scope.

Clarification/correction appreciated!

Thanks,

Adam

...

a.

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org