[governance] today's Wash Post editorial

[parminder]

On Tuesday 22 January 2013 08:43 PM, McTim wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 9:46 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday 22 January 2013 01:25 AM, McTim wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>> I would have thought you would have been pleased that a neo-liberal
>> institution like the WashPost acknowledged that:
>>
>> "There are suspicions aplenty in the rest of the world that
>> this is the equivalent of U.S. control — suspicions that should not be
>> ignored. While the Internet cannot fall into the hands of those who
>> would censor and restrict it, the United States should put more effort
>> into remaking the current model so that it can serve what has become a
>> global infrastructure."

In politics pious statements count only for pious statement, unless one 
has something to back them up - something like a real proposal for action.
>>
>>
>> I think this is actually a very accurate description of the consensus
>> of this Caucus.

Still, let me build on this. So, you agree that IGC has consensus on 
making the current governance systems for CIRs such that "it can serve 
what has become a global infrastructure".

In a previous email, McTim,  you had said that you would like "at some 
point in the evolution of the process to remove the NTIA (US gov agency) 
from the root changing procedure".

I have a simple proposal for doing so. Lets see if you and the IGC can 
agree on it.

Every time ICANN makes a root change decision - which as the global 
Internet names and number agency, it is its job to do - it does not 
communicate it to the NTIA for authentication to then be forwarded to 
the Verisign to make the necessary changes to what is called as the 
authoritative root server, as is the current procedure.

ICANN simply communicates the root change decision simultaneously to all 
the 13 root servers, and also designates a specific time period in which 
the root change exercise should be done. Lets see if the US gov does or 
does not follow the instructions from the legitimate bottom up 
multistakeholder etc etc governance body to make the required changes in 
the the 3 root servers that it owns.

In any case, since it has been often argued on this list that the non US 
gov owned 10 servers, 4 (or is it 3) of them outside the US, are rather 
independent in their decision making, we can certainly expect these 10 
servers to religiously follow the 'legitimate' instructions form the 
'legitimate' CIR governance body. That should be enough to keep the 
global Internet up and running.

Through this simple change of process, very much in ICANN hands to do 
(no existing US law can stop it from doing this) all the power and 
authority in CIR governance would shift completely to ICANN, and away 
from the US, gov, something which is such a big sticking point in global 
IG discussions.

As a by-product, we will also immediately know how much is the US really 
committed to multistakeholderism in global IG, a tune that it never 
ceases to play in public, and which seem to have impressed a lot of 
people who seem to completely believe US's words in this matter.

(There may be some DNSEC related issues, which I am sure can easily be 
sorted out by an alternative DNS security architecture.)

Parminder


>>
>>


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