[governance] Root Server

[parminder]

David

I think that NTIA divesting itself of the IANA authority is a very good 
thing. However, withdrawal of direct executive control over the root 
zone is hardly enough. The root zone should be free from all legal and 
legislative controls of any one country, including any possibility of 
unilateral application any such control in the future. This is the 
single most important issue with regard to determining where should the 
IANA authority now vest.

The reason I consider the NTIA transition process to be a sham is that 
its framing of the IANA issue is deliberately misleading. It 
misleadingly declares IANA 'function' to be  a merely clerical one. This 
is such an affront to the global community which knows very well that 
for the last 15 years or so the single most prominent geopolitical issue 
in global Internet governance has been the issue of a single country's 
oversight of the Internet, representing in its IANA authority.

How can this major political issue be rendered as a clerical and 
technical issue by a simple sleigh of hand. This to me is in fact cheating.

However, the IANA process is being able to fool only those who are ready 
or even eager to be fooled. It does not actually take away one of the 
major global IG issues from the table. We all know that IANA authority 
will now be handed over to ICANN. Yes, US leaving the executive control 
over IANA is good. However, ICANN cannot be left politically 
unsupervised. (In fact, US jurisdiction will continue to undertake 
ICANN's political/ legal oversight.) ICANN should be incorporated under 
international law, giving it full immunity from US jurisdiction, and be 
put under clear rules based oversight of an appropriate global body, 
which need not be typical inter-governmental.

And, yes, people have given specific institutional models to achieve 
this. See for instance the submission of Just Net Coalition to 
NetMundial at 
http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/democratising-global-governance-of-the-internet/164 
. Specifically see point 3 of the proposed institutional roadmap.

regards
parminder



On Monday 28 July 2014 12:13 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> Parminder,
>
> On Jul 27, 2014, at 1:36 AM, parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>  wrote:
>> I dont see why we should not already be seeking such a body
> No one is stopping you (or whoever 'we' is in the above). You (or whoever 'we' is in the above) just need to come up with something that is at least as trusted by resolver operators of the world as the current system, then convince those operators to make use of that zone maintenance/signing/distribution system.
>
> My suspicion is that this will be a hard sell for a variety of reasons, however the first step is to actually come up with a proposal that resolver operators (not politicians) might look at and decide if they want to play along.
>
>> In fact we now already have a US court decision to sieze .ir from the root file.
> As far as I am aware, despite that court decision, .IR remains in the root and nothing has changed with respect to its registration information.
>
>> IANA transition issue is supposed to be basically about these huge current and impending problems.
> My understanding of the transition of the stewardship of IANA is that it is about removing NTIA from its current role. That seems to be a more focused scope that what you believe the IANA transition is supposed to be about. I'm unsure where you derived your view of the IANA transition, but you might want to rereadhttp://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions.
>
>> The fact that we have a complete sham being carried out right now in the name of IANA transition is something at least civil society should sit up and reflect about...
> As far as I can tell, NTIA and the various folks involved in the transition appear to be are quite serious about wanting to remove NTIA from its current role. I'm unsure why you would consider it a 'sham' unless of course you're accusing the transition participants of not pursuing your personal view of the transition. If that is indeed the case, then I suspect the problem does not really lie with them.
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140728/8dbcfb1e/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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