[governance] Vixie supports another root administration

[Paul Vixie]

# ... If this government does not want to relinquish control, this is probably
# because people in Washington do not believe it is an impossibility...

that's not true at all.  off the top of my head, possible reasons why the
republican party might not want to relinquish sole oversight include:

	the prestige of being sole overseer of a the asset

	fear that if left unprotected it will be captured by someone else

	uncertainty as to exactly who might be better qualified than they

in other words, the usual set of reasons why democracy seems like a bad idea
to the people being asked to give up their non-democratic control of something.

but the point is, they don't have to have any actually-nefarious plans, nor
any specific-contingency plans, in order to oppose democratic control of this
asset.  fear, uncertainty, or doubt would theoretically suffice.

# ... Can anyone really believe that IANA would even consider
# doing something without being sure of USG future approbation?

i think the IANA people inside ICANN know what the USG/IANA contract says, and
plan to follow it.  and i think it says, "don't even consider" etc.  (i know
that's circular, but it's literal, which means your question may be circular.)

# OK, I repeat my challenge: if the US government does not intend to
# exercice its power, then why not officially dropping it?

i don't think that there is an official answer to this question, nor do i
think that if there were an official answer, that there would be a USG
employee whose job responsibilities included providing that answer.  so it'll
all just be speculation, and your challenge is unlikely to ever be answered.

# > http://www.isoc.org/briefings/020/
# 
# Yes, very good text, specially the answer to "Q: The majority of the root
# name server operators are based in the United States of America. Couldn't
# the US government force them to make any changes it wants?" where he says
# exactly the opposite of what you said.

my employer (ISC, operator of F-root) is located in the United States, and yet
i can't fathom the law or directive under which USG could successfuly demand
or even ask that the servers responding to 192.5.5.241 and 2001:500::1035 be
reconfigured.  perhaps if martial law were declared first, or something?
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance