[governance] "Oversight"
Ian Peter
ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Thu Jun 14 21:16:03 EDT 2012
Alx, dear long time friend and comrade in arms,
Let me first acknowledge that within ICANN there have been some significant
changes in recent years as regards the AOC, so, yes, some changes are
occurring, and clearly some good work is going on.
But as regards the IANA contracts, root zone authorisation, and USG role,
which was the subject of my message -
I would very happily work with anyone in the technical community towards a
good evolution from current arrangements. I would very much like that
involvement. But the only place I am aware of where suggestions of any
pro-active sort are being made is this list, and its great to see increasing
involvement here. I guess that¹s a positive sign but it would be great to
see positive proposals on ways forward from people like NROs, ISOC, rootops,
etc.
Are there other actions I should be aware of, or initiatives under way which
I could assist with as regards this particular problem?
Ian Peter
From: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" <apisan at unam.mx>
Reply-To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch"
<apisan at unam.mx>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:10:04 +0000
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Ian
Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org>,
parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] "Oversight"
Ian,
the technical community is "addressing the open issues with current
governance." You may not like what you see or, even, you may not see it, but
it is being done (not "happening" but being done.)
At some point we had high hopes that people with your type of education,
experience, and outlook, and with whom we have established a lot of trust
through common efforts like the ISTF, would join forces and instill wisdom
in a true grand collaboration.
I - against a load of evidence - continue hopeful.
Alejandro Pisanty
! !! !!! !!!!
NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO
SMS +525541444475
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Ian Peter
[ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
Enviado el: jueves, 14 de junio de 2012 18:58
Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Conrad; parminder
Asunto: Re: [governance] "Oversight"
David wrote:
>You keep saying this, but I see no evidence of this stance from anyone. What I
do see is pragmatism: the Internet largely >works (for some value of the
variable 'work') and before we risk that, we need to be sure what replaces the
current >scheme isn't going to break things.
I personally will be much happier when the technical community, in addition
to acknowledging that there are issues with current governance, takes a
pro-active stance in devising new governance patterns rather than just
taking a stance of providing a critique of proposals.
A lack of progress in this area only feeds the arguments of those who want
greater government control.
Ian Peter
From: David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org <UrlBlockedError.aspx> >
Reply-To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org <UrlBlockedError.aspx> >, David
Conrad <drc at virtualized.org <UrlBlockedError.aspx> >
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:14:13 -0700
To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org <UrlBlockedError.aspx> >, parminder
<parminder at itforchange.net <UrlBlockedError.aspx> >
Subject: Re: [governance] "Oversight"
Norbert and Parminder,
On Jun 14, 2012, at 3:53 AM, parminder wrote:
>
> Norbert has put the 'slippery slope' scenario quite well.
From my perspective, having been at times in various points in the
processes you're concerned about, these scenarios all fail the sniff test.
They rely on several independent parties (at the very least, the USG, the
root server operators, and the operators of resolvers) all working in
concert against their own self interest in order for actions to be taken
that can be much more easily imposed with less political/economic/social
risk/fallout at other points in the system. The idea that ISPs of the world
would turn a blind eye and meekly submit if the US government decided to
hijack root name resolution regardless of the reason doesn't even pass the
giggle test for me.
However, it seems clear to me that you are convinced this is a viable threat
and nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. I gather you believe
there needs to be a treaty-based solution to address that threat:
> But since in the discharge of the oversight role, commission is a much bigger
> issue than omission, it is certainly better if say 15 other country reps have
> to simultaneously agree to an act of commission along with the US rather than
> US getting to decide it alone.
(and people complain that root zone changes take far too long now :-))
> And that much better if there is an international law to clearly describe the
> oversight role, its procedures and limits, and an international judicial
> system to adjudicate whether the concerned body acted as per the relevant
> international law.
As I tried to describe earlier, as far as I know, the current role of the
USG in matters related to root zone management is to verify that ICANN
hasn't gone off the rails. It has no active role. It doesn't propose changes
(well, other than changes to domains it has direct responsibility for like
.US). What exactly do you anticipate this international body doing? Given
the technical architecture of the DNS requires a single source of data and
that single source must physically exist in some host country somewhere, how
would this international body prevent the host country from doing exactly
the same actions you believe the US can take?
> None of this exists at present vis a vis US's exercise of the oversight role.
> It just a bunch of people convinced that US's is a good and benign government.
You keep saying this, but I see no evidence of this stance from anyone.
What I do see is pragmatism: the Internet largely works (for some value of
the variable 'work') and before we risk that, we need to be sure what
replaces the current scheme isn't going to break things.
Regards,
-drc
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org <UrlBlockedError.aspx>
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
____________________________________________________________
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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120615/d6836c90/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list