Evan, As I pointed out in my note to Peter and Rod during the period in which prefix withdrawal announcements had been made, removing routes "to" but not "through" Egypt from the global routing table, the rate of prefix annoucement affects the Default Free Zone (DFZ), and therefore has global effect. Thus, the existence of prefix withdrawal and availability announcements, at least in their rate of annoucement, and therefore the convergence time within the DFZ, is properly within the scope of the entity assumed by some to have a technical coordination purpose. Peter and Rod didn't think so, and confined their concern to the TTL value for secondary DNS servers who's primaries were not reachable due to a logical partition of the net. In case you missed it, the Bay Area Rapid Transit system administratively failed its cellular phone antenna infrastructure in anticipation of some rider protest of a fatal act of gun violence upon a passenger perpetrated by a system employee. I suspect a public interest issue is whether a name space should be persistent, independent of the administrative failure of all services other than name to address resolution. Restated, were the acts of Peter and Rod well considered when, upon the notice that the Egyptian State had withdrawn all prefixes, they acted to determin if resource record sets were at risk of expiry, and had they been, as they stated, to have committed to act to prevent the expiry of those resource records? More generally, is the persistent resolution of a resource misleading when the resource has been made unavailable by a third party? At what point does "answereing for the dead" become synthetic return? Is the stability and security of the root and critical subordinate DNS infrastructure advanced by indifference to administrative failure for state policy ends? I'm unchanged in my prior view that there is a technical coordination issue, minimally in informing prefix withdrawing entities that effect on the DFZ is not without liability, and that if synthetic return and other forms of forgery are within scope, that the representation that resources exist when in fact they do not, or "synthetic persistence", is also within scope. Eric