<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
On Monday 25 June 2012 02:16 AM, David Conrad wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:E46F79C7-1743-4C5B-8F99-8C6CA412AC0F@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Parminder,
On Jun 21, 2012, at 6:36 PM, parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">But even if we were to agree to what you argue, why would the same safe-guards not operate in case of a international oversight mechanism?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">They probably would, but hard to say for certain without a concrete example of said "international oversight mechanism". Can you point me at one?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I have proposed some outlines of such a possible model and I you want I can re state it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I was actually looking for a concrete (ideally peer-reviewed) proposal or, more preferably, an operational example or prototype, not an outline of lofty goals or possible models. Does such exist?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
In socio-political arena, the method of seeking 'solutions' or the 'way
forward' normally is that we first try to agree on larger ideas and
principles, and then progressively move towards the details. Those
approaching this debate from the technical side must respect this
general method as they want their method of deciding on technical
issues respected. The main broad points of the model that I had
proposed are<br>
<br>
(1) An international treaty clearly lays out the scope, procedures and
limits of an international CIR oversight body, as it provides it with
the required authority<br>
<br>
(2) ICANN itself becomes an international technical body under the same
statute as above, and it enters into a host country agreement with the
hosting country, which could be the US<br>
<br>
(3) The same treaty sanctifies the broad principles of the current
distributed CIR and tech standards development model (ICANN, RIRs, IETF
etc)<br>
<br>
(4) The oversight body is a stand-alone body set up under the mentioned
treaty - outside the UN system but perhaps with some loose coupling
with it, in a manner that it is not subject to typical UN rules. It
would ab initio evolve its own rules, procedures etc. <br>
<br>
(5) The oversight body can have 15-20 members, with equitable regional
representation. Within each region the country from which members would
come will get rotated. ( Here, we will need some degree of innovation
to ensure that although the member will have some clear relationship/
backing of the government, her selection/ affirmation would require a
broader national process. Some linkages with highest level national
technical institutions can also be explored. More ideas are welcome
here.)<br>
<br>
(6) The role of the oversight body will be minimal, clearly constrained
by the relevant international law, exercised through clearly detailed
procedures, and based on a sufficiently high majority, if not
consensus. <br>
<br>
(7) Its decision will be subject to a separate judicial process (can
look at a possible role for the International court of justice)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:E46F79C7-1743-4C5B-8F99-8C6CA412AC0F@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I'll admit I'm still not clear what you believe the "international oversight mechanism" should do.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
More or less what the US gov does in relation to CIR management. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:E46F79C7-1743-4C5B-8F99-8C6CA412AC0F@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> You've been talking about how the evil USG will trample the contents of the root zone. Presumably, the "international oversight mechanism" will be overseeing the operations of root zone modification as the USG does today. </pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
yes<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:E46F79C7-1743-4C5B-8F99-8C6CA412AC0F@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Since those operations must be based in some country, it isn't clear to me how the "international oversight mechanism" would be able to stop that country's government from going rogue and doing what you believe the evil USG will do.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, it doesnt happen that way at all. Host country agreement and the
authorising international law are there precisely to prevent such a
thing. Today, if the US 'interferes' with root zone operation, it
breaks no law, neither domestic nor international. To forcibly break
into an international body's premises which is protected by host
country agreement and based on international treaty, and interfering in
its work, will be an extraordinary defiance of international law, the
kind which even the US doesnt do :). It can be subject to further
international processes like those from the UN and the international
court of justice. BTW, the fact that the US is one of the countries
with the uneasiest of relationships with the international court of
justice may be a good reason to seek ICANN's and the oversight body's
hosting outside the US. However, perhaps for, historical continuity's
sake US would do as well. <br>
<br>
regards, parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:E46F79C7-1743-4C5B-8F99-8C6CA412AC0F@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Regards,
-drc
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>