[governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options'

[Danny Younger]

Hi,

Re:  "For the current DNS, I think we need to find a
solution that they can accept and willingly hand over
control to."

The Council of European National Top-Level Domain
Registries, CENTR, provided a "Response to U.S.
Principles on the Internet’s Domain Name and
Addressing System":

"CENTR concurs with the general consensus that
modifications to authoritative data contained in the
root zone have to date been exercised as a service to
the community in a neutral and non-discriminatory
manner.

At the same time, we encourage the U.S. to further
explore, together with registry managers and other
governments, the means by which the execution of these
functions can be enhanced and decentralised using
proven technology in order to optimise efficiency,
accuracy of data, Internet stability and security.

This approach can contribute to depoliticise the role
of the root, and empower the relevant local Internet
registries and the respective local Internet
communities (including governments) to exercise local
supervision of their components in the root zone. This
should minimise the need for any procedural
intervention by other parties. 

We endorse the USG’s statement that ICANN should
continue to be the forum for cooperation for DNS
issues as a service to the community, and that ICANN
should focus on its core function and limited remit."
http://www.centr.org/docs/2005/07/response-usg.html

In a nutshell, it appears that CENTR is advocating the
depoliticization of the root through further
automation of the performance of the IANA functions;
this is one solution that has considerable merit. 




--- Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:

> 
> hi,
> 
> On 7 nov 2005, at 03.04, Parminder wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > But that precisely is the big question. We cant
> say we have done  
> > everything else, only this little detail is left.
> The whole issue  
> > of political oversight hinges on sorting this
> question. Please see  
> > my other mail on this issue to the IG list. We
> cant submit a CS  
> > position without sorting out and agreeing on this
> ‘mother of issues’.
> >
> >
> >
> > If we can agree on having a legitimate political
> body do the  
> > external oversight, after it is taken away from
> the US  – then I am  
> > in complete agreement with all the text in the
> draft on the needed  
> > reform in ICANN
..
> 
> I think this is exactly the point we cannot come to
> agreement on.  We  
> have those who insist on no government external
> oversight, those who  
> are willing to allow some government over sight as
> peers to other  
> stakeholders, and those who would hand full
> political oversight over  
> to governments or inter-governmental organizations. 
> I do not believe  
> we can resolve that issue and don't think we can
> make any  
> recommendations on it.
> 
> I did have the hope, that perhaps we could agree on
> the degree and  
> form of external political oversight without needing
> to actually  
> decide on who would wield it.
> 
> Additionally, I don't see how it can be taken away
> from the USG  
> except by creation of a new domain name system. For
> the current DNS,  
> I think we need to find a solution that they can
> accept aand  
> willingly hand over control to.  I think that this
> real-politic has  
> to constrain the solution space we explore.
> 
> a.> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 



	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance