[governance] today's Wash Post editorial

Fri Jan 25 12:57:57 EST 2013

Parminder,

this new exercise is yet again based on flawed assumptions, once again about how things actually work, the incentives and principles that drive people (in this round the suspects are the root server operators.) Further, your proposal does not match the way the multistakeholder mentality and processes actually work, esp. in a context like ICANN which involves real decision-making, risk management, error-correction, fail-safe outcomes, robustness, resilience, transparency, accountability and mechanisms to review and redress decisions. 

David Conrad and McTim are again making a good-faith effort to educate you. What I've seen them write in the last day is would have earned them about a thousand dollars for the online tutoring, with the incentive that they could actually flunk a student who doesn't read, doesn't study, doesn't listen and doesn't learn. Milton has added his voice and the eloquent silence of many others is one more sign. 

To move away from the next step which would be likely considered ad hominem and beyond Netiquette and list rules, may I suggest you attend the upcoming ICANN meeting in Beijing and talk to some of the root-server operator community directly? I offer to broker at least one such meeting to the extent that they accept it. 

I confess I've looked around to see if we could put together funds to defray your expenses but found no takers. But do go. Of course an alternative is to apply for a Fellowship for a later meeting if ITforChange continues to think that your attendance to an ICANN meeting is not strategic enough to spend the organization's own money for it. 

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD

+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
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 parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Enviado el: viernes, 25 de enero de 2013 09:55
Hasta: Balleste, Roy; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Asunto: Re: [governance] today's Wash Post editorial

On Friday 25 January 2013 09:17 PM, Balleste, Roy wrote:
> Any legitimate model of internet governance that sets aside ICANN would probably fail.

Prof Balleste, you are completely misreading my proposal. It doesnt set
ICANN aside, it makes ICANN the all powerful authority in the CIR
(critical Internet resources) space, freeing it from the yoke of US's
oversight... parminder

>
> Roy Balleste, J.S.D.
> Professor of Law
> Law Library Director
> St. Thomas University
> 16401 NW 37th Avenue
> Miami Gardens, FL 33054  USA
> 1-305-623-2341
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 9:53 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] today's Wash Post editorial
>
>
> On Friday 25 January 2013 08:05 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>> Parminder,
>> <snip>
>>> which I am sure can easily be sorted out by an alternative DNS
>>> security architecture.)
>> You'd probably first need to convince the root server operators that there is a problem that coming up with an "alternative DNS security architecture" (by which I presume you mean "alternative key management processes") would solve.  This might be challenging.
> My general proposal assumes widespread agreement among an overwhelming majority of actors in the global IG space that the US oversight of ICANN is essentially illegitimate and must be replaced. (This is what I have been led to believe from discussions on this list.)
>
> If this assumption holds, I would presume that at least 10 of the 13 root servers operators (non US gov), whom I consider trustees for global Internet public, would be among such actors who ultimately seek global legitimacy for a global infrastructures. Indeed, I think even you
> (David) have argued that these non US gov root server operators are expected to take decisions in conformity with global public interest, and are not tied to the apron strings of the US gov, and its narrow interests.
>
> Even if these root server operators are themselves not so democratically inclined, I would hope that the moral persuasive power of the mentioned overwhelming majority of actors can turn them around towards seeking real movement towards what Washington Post described as " remaking the current model so that it can serve what has become a global infrastructure".
>
> Perhaps, we should start with a meeting between ICANN and the root operators, convened by public interest actors, like maybe the IGC, to kickstart the process that my proposal seeks to establish.
>
> regards, parminder
>> Regards,
>> -drc
>>
>>
>

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