<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">David<br>
<br>
I think that NTIA divesting itself of the IANA authority is a very
good thing. However, withdrawal of direct executive control over
the root zone is hardly enough. The root zone should be free from
all legal and legislative controls of any one country, including
any possibility of unilateral application any such control in the
future. This is the single most important issue with regard to
determining where should the IANA authority now vest. <br>
<br>
The reason I consider the NTIA transition process to be a sham is
that its framing of the IANA issue is deliberately misleading. It
misleadingly declares IANA 'function' to be a merely clerical
one. This is such an affront to the global community which knows
very well that for the last 15 years or so the single most
prominent geopolitical issue in global Internet governance has
been the issue of a single country's oversight of the Internet,
representing in its IANA authority.<br>
<br>
How can this major political issue be rendered as a clerical and
technical issue by a simple sleigh of hand. This to me is in fact
cheating. <br>
<br>
However, the IANA process is being able to fool only those who are
ready or even eager to be fooled. It does not actually take away
one of the major global IG issues from the table. We all know that
IANA authority will now be handed over to ICANN. Yes, US leaving
the executive control over IANA is good. However, ICANN cannot be
left politically unsupervised. (In fact, US jurisdiction will
continue to undertake ICANN's political/ legal oversight.) ICANN
should be incorporated under international law, giving it full
immunity from US jurisdiction, and be put under clear rules based
oversight of an appropriate global body, which need not be typical
inter-governmental.<br>
<br>
And, yes, people have given specific institutional models to
achieve this. See for instance the submission of Just Net
Coalition to NetMundial at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/democratising-global-governance-of-the-internet/164">http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/democratising-global-governance-of-the-internet/164</a>
. Specifically see point 3 of the proposed institutional roadmap.
<br>
<br>
regards<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 28 July 2014 12:13 AM, David
Conrad wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:E019654E-FBBE-4764-9E64-39CA16187961@virtualized.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Parminder,
On Jul 27, 2014, at 1:36 AM, parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I dont see why we should not already be seeking such a body
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">No one is stopping you (or whoever 'we' is in the above). You (or whoever 'we' is in the above) just need to come up with something that is at least as trusted by resolver operators of the world as the current system, then convince those operators to make use of that zone maintenance/signing/distribution system.
My suspicion is that this will be a hard sell for a variety of reasons, however the first step is to actually come up with a proposal that resolver operators (not politicians) might look at and decide if they want to play along.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In fact we now already have a US court decision to sieze .ir from the root file.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">As far as I am aware, despite that court decision, .IR remains in the root and nothing has changed with respect to its registration information.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">IANA transition issue is supposed to be basically about these huge current and impending problems.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">My understanding of the transition of the stewardship of IANA is that it is about removing NTIA from its current role. That seems to be a more focused scope that what you believe the IANA transition is supposed to be about. I'm unsure where you derived your view of the IANA transition, but you might want to reread <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions">http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions</a>.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The fact that we have a complete sham being carried out right now in the name of IANA transition is something at least civil society should sit up and reflect about...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">As far as I can tell, NTIA and the various folks involved in the transition appear to be are quite serious about wanting to remove NTIA from its current role. I'm unsure why you would consider it a 'sham' unless of course you're accusing the transition participants of not pursuing your personal view of the transition. If that is indeed the case, then I suspect the problem does not really lie with them.
Regards,
-drc
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>