[governance] today's Wash Post editorial

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Jan 27 02:24:45 EST 2013 

Milton

On Friday 25 January 2013 10:45 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Any change model needs to take the role of VeriSign, which operates the root server currently recognized as "authoritative", into account. The system, like Cerberus, is a three-headed dog. (USG, ICANN, VRSN)

Isnt Verisign just an agent of the US gov in operating the root server 
currently recognised as "authoritative"? That is why I did not take 
Verisign into account as an independent actor here. I am sure Verisign's 
actions will be legally constrained and cant go beyond what it is 
instructed to do by the US gov.
>
> Generally, I am surprised that Parminder would opt for a change mechanism that would rely on unilateral action by RS operators and ICANN rather than one with more democratic legitimacy.

Interesting! And what is that option you suggest with "more democratic 
legitimacy". Please be explicit.

My proposal was based on the claims often made on this list by ICANN 
supporters that

1. ICANN has global legitimacy due to its global multistakeholder model, 
and can be trusted to act in global public interest. (I take it that 
global democracy is certainly a global public interest.)

2. They all (or, at least most of them) prefer a free float ICANN model 
whereby ICANN does not have to take anyone's permission to effect root 
changes. (My proposal simply presents a plausible way to go forward on 
establishing a freefloat ICANN model.  In absence of a clear model, and 
clear proposals on how to go forward on it, and what role can/ should 
IGC play, pious statements, as I said, are just pious statements and do 
not behove IGC which claims to ba platform not only for discussion, but 
also for advocacy and action) (BTW, I know, you, Milton, do not advocate 
a free-float ICANN model. However, I remain unclear on what model you 
advocate.)

3. If US ever does any hanky panky business with the "authoritative" 
root zone, the non US gov owned root operators (10 of them) can be 
trusted simply not to follow suit. They were credited with such a keen 
global public interest minded-ness. Any and all of our discussions on 
this list about the problem with US authority over root changes always 
always hit this dead-end.... It was difficult to "prove" before-hand 
that root server operators are most likely to follow suit to any US 
mandated root changes, such is the geo-eco-political scenario of the 
world today. (I am surprised now when I am approaching the issue from 
the opposite end - people like McTim and David who stone-walled any 
earlier discussion on this list about the problem with the US oversight 
role over root changes with the argument that "other root server 
operators would simply not comply" now disclaim any reason to believe 
that "other" root server operators can be expected to behave in any 
manner other than of their private interests. I think we need to get a 
fix on what "other" root servers can or cannot be expected to do and 
cannot keep it moving as per our convenience, depending on what argument 
one is pursuing.)

> Probably he hasn't thought this through very well.
>
> Any precipitous change in IG arrangements that occurred without at least the passive assent of a broad public AND the key stakeholders

I am not asking for this change to take place without assent of 'a broad 
public AND the key stakeholders'... My proposal is for the global 
stakeholders represented in the ICANN, and giving it legitimacy, to rise 
in one voice and seek ICANN's independence from illegitimate US control. 
I seek it to be  a bottom up process, and therefore propose the IGC to 
start it.

  And for the technical community (and inter alia I put root server 
operators in that category) to finally put their money where their mouth 
is (with all this talk of 'we are for a free-float ICANN'). And if 
ICANN's constituent stakeholders and the technical community refuses to 
do all this, then they should simply stop saying, "well, in principle, 
we are against US/ NTIA role in root changes, we want ICANN to be a free 
float agency".

Partly, the purpose of my proposal was to expose this above hypocrisy 
(i.e. only if it exists :) ). I took it to have only an outside chance 
that my proposal will indeed be taken up by this group. But yes I did 
give it an outside chance :), what with the WG on Enhanced Cooperation 
coming up and hopefully we will shake off our collective sloth and get 
on to the task that the IGC was constituted for - to seek and push for 
progressive change in global IG architecture, and policies..

>   would create a lot of risks of counter-actions and disruptions that might undo whatever temporary gains were achieved.

That kind is a regular excuse against any change - however positive and 
progressive it may be . And whether global legitimacy and democracy is a 
temporary and unimportant gain is a political choice we have to make. It 
is evident that we make it differently..

parminder



>
>> -----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 10:51 AM
>> To: McTim
>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Conrad
>> Subject: Re: [governance] today's Wash Post editorial
>>
>>
>> On Friday 25 January 2013 08:48 PM, McTim wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>> right, clear that hurdle, then convince ICANN to violate the contract
>>> that gives them their raison d'être and I am on board!
>> The whole point of what I am proposing is that ICANN raison d'etre must
>> be its bottom up global legitimacy, and not the contract with the US
>> gov... And ICANN has to take a stand on favour of one against the other
>> possible raison d'etre. There is an obvious tension between the two, and
>> my proposal invites us, and finally the ICANN, to take a clear stand on
>> what ICANN's raison d'etre really is.
>>
>> It is however intersting to note that you seem to consider the US
>> contract being ICANN's raison d'etre rather than its bottom up global
>> legitimacy.
>>
>> 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

More information about the Governance mailing list