[governance] Burr & Cade: proposal for introducing multi-lateral oversight of the root

[Avri Doria]

<personal question>

Hi,


isn't the Burr & Cade (she is a signatory) proposal about the RZF and  
the control/veto of changes to it?  if so, aren't they the ones who  
are not dividing the topic as opposed to it being the dialogue on  
this list that isn't.

also your topic one, do you distinguish between having a role and  
having the dominant role or being the only one with a role.

a.

On 24 jul 2006, at 11.28, Milton Mueller wrote:

>>>> apeake at gmail.com 7/20/2006 10:12 AM >>>
>> Thanks to Brenden Kuerbis and IGP for pointing to an interesting
>> proposal from Becky Burr and Marilyn Cade on oversight of the root
>
> A bit behind the traffic here, but please note that the proposal is  
> Burr's.
> Marilyn Cade has simply endorsed it.
>
> Another problem with this debate I have noticed is a confusion  
> between two distinct things:
>
> 1. The importance of Internet policies and the need, or even the  
> inevitability, of governments playing a role in how those policies  
> are rules are made.
>
> 2. Control over modifications of the Root Zone File (RZF).
>
> Let's create a sharp distinction between the two. Governments can  
> have 1 without 2. Since ICANN is a global organization and needs to  
> be accountable, governments can and should establish global rules  
> that help to make it accountable. For example, if ICANN or its  
> successor abuses its authority, breaks its own rules, cheats,  
> steals, etc. it needs to be accountable. Governments need to work  
> out how to apply competition policy and law, and trade rules to  
> ICANN. That's all legitimate government business.
>
> But that does not mean that governments need to have or should have  
> some kind of veto power over modifications of the root zone file.  
> It seems to me that giving governments*any one or any collection of  
> them*some kind of final veto power over the RZF is just asking for  
> trouble. The Burr proposal tries to deal with this by saying that  
> governments can intervene only to protect technical stability and  
> security. But this is like telling a fox he can only eat one of the  
> chickens he is guarding when the stability and security of the farm  
> is threatened. The fox will always want to eat the chickens, and  
> will use any excuse he can to define something as a threat to the  
> farm's stability and security.
>
> Governments and their representatives are not likely to have any  
> clue as to what RZF changes affect the technical security and  
> stability of the Internet. But they will know how their political  
> interests are affected. They will want to control or affect the RZF  
> for political reasons, not technical ones.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance