[discuss] IANA K - a problem for where?

Mon Jan 20 09:13:38 UTC 2014

I think there's plenty of room for people/groups to work on other problems in Internet governance.  Let a thousand (or at least a posy) of flowers bloom. 

On the topic, James suggests it's an issue of perception, and while this might be correct, the USG relationship with ICANN and IANA is emblematic of divisions over Internet governance.  One of the drivers for the compromise that saw the IGF formed.  Might be a useful symbolic success if the Brazil meeting's able to bring about process that works to resolve this problem.  (If it weren't important, why would it feature in the Montevideo statement?)

Adam

On Jan 20, 2014, at 5:32 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

> +1 it seems to me that there are much more significant and nearer term issues to focus on than the DNS and ICANN, where there are established processes and venues to discuss them. The Brazil meeting and the WSIS review, given the date for the former is April and the latter March, seem far more pressing to me. It seems to me that there is an over emphasis on both ICANN and the ITU in the Internet policy community. But all productive consensus building efforts have value.
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
> Colleagues:
> 
> While I appreciate the attempt to find actual questions is our conversations, I go back to recent questions being raised about the purpose of 1Net and the detail of this conversation.  Are we looking at this as a Brazil issue?  If so, the level of discourse related to a possible governance principle is way too detailed.  Furthermore the conversation seems to highlight checks and balances and proper functioning (with one possible exception) highlighted by a concern for possible badness, mischief or abuse.  That is obviously an oversimplification of the long conversation, but did I miss the smoking gun of abuse/failure?  
> 
> The reason I raise this is what someone once termed the dial tone effect (ok so I'm old enough to use landline analogies) - essentially a presumption that when you pick up a receiver there will be a dial tone.  While the Internet has demonstrated resiliency in light of many issues, I do not think it is advi
>  sable
> to take its functioning for granted.  As the group discusses possible solutions to problems, real or possible, I would like us to pay similar attention to the concept of the critical importance of continued functioning and stability of the Net and the need to review and test any proposal prior to deployment for that.  We should hold fast to a main principle of the Hippocratic oath - first do no harm.
> 
> 
> Joe
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>  On Jan 20, 2014, at 5:41 AM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
>  
>  the ICANN steps and the Verisign steps, various syntactic and semantic checks are made prior to the change being moved to the next step (being sent to NTIA in ICANN's case, being signed and pushed to the master distribution server in Verisign's case).  
>  
>  In the case of ICANN, I can't actually think of a unila
>  teral
> action that can be made that is not checked by at least 2 other parties.
> 
> 
> 
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> -- 
> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss