[governance] oversight

[Milton Mueller]

>>> Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org> 10/11/2005 1:54 PM >>>
>I think that our only possible common objective is to have no
government 
>in charge of "DNS oversight" (that is, root zone file changes). 
>Otherwise, we will part into those who say "USG oversight isn't that
bad 
>in practice" and those who say "USG oversight is unacceptable on a 
>matter of principle", which are two non-reconcilable views.

I think the only solution lies in one's definition of what is
"oversight." The IGP has addressed this months ago in its paper on
ICANN. If "oversight" means the kind of undefined, open-ended, arbitrary
power the US currently holds, then it's no better, and may be worse,
when multiple governments hold it. 

If "oversight" means what it SHOULD mean, namely a kind of audit and
appeal power that prevents ICANN itself from abusing its authority, then
of course it should be internationalized. 

The problem is one of institutional design - creating a limited,
lawful, rule-bound oversight procedure/authority that cannot devolve
into the kind of arbitrary top-down oversight council that some
governments are advocating. 

That said, if we can't get that, I think that "oversight by all 
governments" still is much, much better than "oversight by one 
government". And personally, I don't think that the particular country

to which that one government belongs makes too much of a difference: 
governments have different styles and ranges of censorship and control,

but all of them try to exert them.

P.S. To Paul:
 > 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?

There are plenty of technical parameters that are mandated by law, 
usually through generic laws that say that devices of the X type have
to 
abide by technical regulations approved by the Y institute, which in 
turn mandate technicalities. For example, my cell phone is configured
to 
use certain frequencies as per technical regulations ultimately
deriving 
from laws. I don't see why there could not be a law that demands to a 
given authority (say, ICANN) the authority to determine the root zone 
that a DNS server must use to be legal.

Then, of course, you can change the configuration to use a different 
root zone, much like you can alter the frequency of a radio transmitter

and use a prohibited one... but if they get you, you'll be punished.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a]
bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org 
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance