[governance] Root etc.

Mon Aug 20 13:42:49 EDT 2012

Wolfgang,

Thank you for a very interesting and insightful 
comment.  The history of setting the zero 
meridian really put this discussion into a useful 
perspective.  I appreciate your invoking Kofi 
Annan's perspective on this issue.

I would only add that while you are correct that 
everything that can be said has probably been 
said  --  at least for the present  --  not 
everyone has said it yet.  At least several times 
over.  :-(

George

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 6:32 PM +0200 8/20/12, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>Content-type: text/plain
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>
>Hi
>
>I was silent in this debate about root servers 
>and USG role in authorization of the publication 
>of TLD zone files in the root because everything 
>has been already said since years and I did not 
>see any big news since this was discussed at 
>length and in detail by the WGIG. My article in 
>Bill Drakes WGIG book (2005) has analyzed all 
>dimensions and I see little reason to add 
>something more in the light of the developments 
>in the last seven years.
>
>The only two new things which has been emerged are
>a. we have now more than 150 anycast root server 
>which makes the whole system more flexible, less 
>dependent from the 13 members of the legacy root 
>and improves the situation in particular in 
>developing countries a lot (faster responses 
>etc.) .
>b. we have seen the "moment of truth"  with 
>regard to the role of the USG in the 
>authorization of the publication of a TLD Zone 
>file which went through the ICANN process. The 
>USG - pushed by the US Congress - was more or 
>less against .xxx. Theoretically they could have 
>stopped the publication of the zone file in the 
>root (and EU Commissioner Kroes wanted to 
>encourage the USG to do so). The DOC/NTIA did 
>not and after the San Francisco meeting 
>Strickling explained to the US Congress (and to 
>the rest of the world) that the USG was, is and 
>has to be the "neutral stewart" of this 
>technical function and can not use this role to 
>implement national policies.
>
>I understand, trust is good, a treaty is better. 
>But in this case we have all reasons to trust 
>and I have my doubt whether a treaty would be 
>better.
>
>The idea of an "internationalization" of the 
>authorization function was discussed, as I said 
>above, by the WGIG and in this discussion in 
>became clear that a transfer of this technical 
>function to an intergovernmental body would 
>unavoidably provoke an unwanted politization of 
>this function with a tremondous potential for 
>collatoral damages. Such a body would evolve 
>into something like a UN Internet Security 
>Council. This body would become soon a theater 
>of political, economic, ideological, religious 
>conflicts where different governments will fight 
>until the bitter end to block the authorization 
>of specific TLD zone files, even of ccTLDs when 
>a ccTLD (of a hated enemy) has to modify their 
>entry into the root for a new name server or 
>something like that, Imagine if each of the new 
>gTLDs, which will come to the root, would have 
>to go - after adoption by ICANN - through a 
>discussion of such an intergovernmental body? 
>How you would organize voting in such a body? 
>Which countries would get a veto right?  How to 
>select members? Will it have permanent members 
>or will membership rotate? You open a box of 
>pandora which would backfire to the three 
>billion internet users of the world who would be 
>the big loosers, including the developing 
>countries which would be blocked to get benefits 
>from a future internet development.
>
>I understand that governmental policy needs 
>symbols and the root and the role of the USG is 
>a good case to make noise because it is full of 
>symbolism. But it should be one of the 
>responsibilities of the members of this list to 
>help governments to understand the issue better.
>
>In one of the first meetings WGIG had with Kofi 
>Annan he said: You can not wish away history. 
>The system , as it stands now, is the result of 
>such a historic process and it does not harm and 
>it is not broken. If you start to change the 
>system the risk is high that you do harm.
>
>For people who have an interest in history I 
>recommend to have a look into the history of the 
>time zones. 
>http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/info/time-zones-history.htm. 
>When in the middle of the 19th century the need 
>for a standard time was growing, the British 
>governments proposed to use the Zero Meridian in 
>Greenwich as a starting point. The man who 
>invented the zero meridian decided that zero is 
>where his table stands. If you go to Greenwich 
>you can stand there with the right leg in the 
>Eastern and with the left leg in the Western 
>hemisphere. But this simple proposal became the 
>subject of an incredible political struggle. It 
>was rejected by the French govenrment as 
>"British imperialism", that the UK wants to 
>highjack the time zones etc. The waned to have 
>the zero meridian in Paris. It needed 20 years 
>of diplomatic negotiations and a 
>intergovernmental conference in 1884 (in 
>Washington, D.C., initiated by the US president) 
>to reach a compromise. The compromise was: The 
>UK got the Greenwich time (now UTC), and France 
>got the "control" over the time which was 
>delegated to the Bureau International des Poids 
>et Mesures (BIPM) headquatered in Paris. The 
>BIPM was established in 1875 based a the 
>socalled intergovernmental "Meter Convention" 
>and it was responsible to oversee the "metric 
>system". With other words, if our time has to be 
>fixed now for another milisecond this is done in 
>Paris (under French jursidiction), but when we 
>start counting our time zones we start in 
>Greenwich. Today nobody says "Greenwich-Time" 
>anymore, it is just UTC. The British empire is 
>gone, but the system works.
>
>Wolfgang
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von McTim
>Gesendet: Mo 20.08.2012 17:20
>An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
>Betreff: Re: [governance] Tangential (On 
>Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts 
>decisively and illegally
>
>
>
>
>On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:14 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
><snip>
>
>
>	The alternative is clear;
>
>
>
>There is an even clearer alternative, that of NO oversight by governments.
>
>Since we are CS, why would we insist on having 
>gov'ts take on this role when we can do it 
>ourselves (as a "free--floating" ICANN run by an 
>international BoD)?
>
>Not only is this more desirable IMHO, but 
>actually something that might be achieved.
>
>
>
>--
>Cheers,
>
>McTim
>"A name indicates what we seek. An address 
>indicates where it is. A route indicates how we 
>get there."  Jon Postel
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t