[governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance

[McTim]

MIlton!

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> David
>
>
>
>> Personally speaking (as always), I believe that oversight is important.
>> While I have no
>
>> fears of the current IANA staff running off the rails, it is important to
>> remember that in
>
>> the past when there was less focus on what IANA did, it did run off the
>> rails.
>
>
>
> Are you referring here to the Jan 1998 Jon Postel “experiment” redirecting
> the root servers, or something else? If something else, please let me know;
> it is useful to have specific cases of what can go wrong.
>
>
>
> Btw if you do mean the Postel redirection, am I correct that this is _not_
> what NTIA currently audits (which master root server is used)?
>
>
>
> When it comes to deciding what can go in the root, that is clearly now the
> role of the GAC (see GAC Communnique's from Beijing, Durban).
>
>
>
>> Oversimplification.
>
>
>
> Not an oversimplification: completely wrong.

I admit to oversimplifying, but ask .gcc or .patagonia if I'm wrong!



>
>
>
> The GAC provides _advice_ to the Board on “public policy issues” that are
> supposed to emerge from ICANN’s policy development process. GAC has no role
> in auditing or monitoring the actual changes that go into the root after
> they have been decided. Indeed, that is a pretty good example of something
> you do _not_ want a collection of mid-level bureaucrats with no technical
> expertise to do.


mais oui (sorry, on a flight to Paris, couldn't resist).


>
>
>
> There seems to be a deeper error embedded in both David’s comments and the
> person he was responding to.
>
>
>
> It is important not to confuse the audit function of root zone changes
> performed by NTIA with a policy making function performed by ICANN’s
> allegedly bottom up process. It is extremely dangerous to combine or confuse
> the two.

Did I conflate them? Apologies, they are clearly separate in my mind.

Let's say there is a string, call it ".whatever".  It sails along
through the evaluation process quite merrily. One day the GAC takes up
the notion that .whatever is bad for us for whatever reason it wants.
If the GAC says "non" to .whatever and the Board capitulates (as they
seem to do more and more these days), then whois the "decider"?

Your concrete example below is not at all concrete.  The above is the
new paradigm we currently enjoy.

I'd be happier if the GAC were to take on the NTIA role, rather than
have the status quo with their current (near) veto over what goes into
the root).
I for one would insist they give up their special status in the
By-Laws if they were to take on the root auth role.  I doubt they
would want to downgrade their current power.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- 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