[governance] today's Wash Post editorial

[McTim]

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:44 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> On Friday 25 January 2013 08:48 PM, McTim wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:35 AM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Parminder,
>>>
>>> On Jan 25, 2013, at 3:10 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Ignoring everything else, I have some doubt that the current root server
>>> operators would be at all interested in taking on the role (and liabilities)
>>> you're proposing.
>
>
> This is to say that root operators do not see themselves in any kind of
> public interest role

I think this is an overstatement, as is denoting as "illegitimate" the US role.

I wold say the latter is perhaps suboptimal, given the global nature
of Internetworking.


, and do what they do entirely for  their own private
> reasons and interests. Well, if this is the case,  when an argument is made
> that US can indeed do an inappropriate changes in the root


but they simply, physically can't as they are not the zone admin.

, hopefully we
> will from now on never be confronted with this argument that root operators
> simply wont comply (I think both David and McTim have made this argument.).
> This is the point that such a discussion always reaches and stalls at.
>
>  If root operators cannot be trusted to follow public interest

They may have a different view of what the "global public interest" means.

Keeping the Internet working, for example, may be a greater value to
them than changing the US role.

, then they
> are illegitimate occupiers of key nodes of a public infrastructure and we
> should seek to dislodge them.

and how do you propose to do that?

 At least take an advocacy position against
> them, since advocacy preceded civil and political action.

oh yes, by all means, let's take an advocacy position against a group
of highly competent folk who VOLUNTEER their time and large amounts of
cash to serve the global DNS, and who do it well.


>> right, clear that hurdle,
>
>
> I am asking for us all to try and clear all such hurdles, starting with
> agreeing to a common advocacy position and sharing it with all key actors.
> My question is: do you agree to sign on it or not.

no.  Asking ICANN to violate a contract is a non-starter.

>
>
>> then convince ICANN to violate the contract
>> that gives them their raison d'être
>
>
> As above, it is a proposal for the IGC,  including you.... to take up a
> position on this matter and advocate it.
>
>>   and I am on board!
>
>
> That is too convenient. You need to tell us whether you are on board at the
> start of this process or not.... and not at the end of it..

see above.

and I appreciate Ronny's comments about "yoke" downthread.

The Caucus is in danger of becoming the Anti-American Internet
Governance Caucus.

-- 
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