[governance] today's Wash Post editorial

Sun Jan 27 11:42:09 EST 2013

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 2:24 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> 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.)

Can you point to statements made by anybody on this list that quote the above?

I think you are again putting words in people's mouths (so to speak).

>
> 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.

You make it sound like an organisation, acting alone can do whatever it wants.

It's a policy secretariat that does what it's policy community tells it to do.

(My proposal simply presents a plausible way to go forward on
> establishing a freefloat ICANN model.

Your proposal is revolution, where most of us prefer evolution.

  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.)

I'm sorry to call you out on this, but the IGC is not at all
interested in doing ICANN work (as a body).

We seem ONLY to be interested in IGF/UN related work.

>
> 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.

Well, they DO voluntary provide many millions of dollars worth of name
resolution services every year without charging anyone for these
services, I don't think you can expect much more of them.

 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,

As Alejandro says, you seem incapable of listening/learning.

The US CANNOT mandate root changes, they only check to see if the IANA
has followed their own procedures.

> 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.)

There are 12 of these orgs, I suspect their interests do not always
dove-tail.  You could ask them, I am not sure you will get answers
that satisfy you.

>
>
>> 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').

I am not sure the Technical community has that position, can you point
to a statement put out by them to that effect?

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 don't see it existing.

 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..
>

I submit that cooperating with the "Enahnced Cooperation" agenda may
not be in the global public interest, as I see the EC folks pushing a
governmental agenda with CS and other groupings being sidelined.

-- 
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