[discuss] P1 version 3: Added detail and a request for useful background information

Mon Jan 20 14:30:26 UTC 2014

George,

the so called  (not technical) "governance of the internet" is an 
aporia i.e. two possible things:

- "a group of individually plausible but collectively incompatible 
theses" (Nicholas Rescher) equivalent in semantics to, in the 
mathematical area, a catastrophic situation that can only resolve by 
self-organized criticality, or preemptively dissolve through better 
analysis (in this case of what is the so-called "internet", as asked 
by Nathalie Coupet).
- either a social manipulation network of sophisms.

Please let not engage into the second hypothesis, by transforming 
your dilemma as an ICANN Board Member into a pseudo-dilemma for the 
world. The internet has been created without ICANN. Today the 
question for an ICANN board member loyal to the internet community 
is: can it work better (1) without ICANN and, if not, (2) in changing 
ICANN, and if yes (3) how. What you propose is to proceed to this 
analysis but in reversing the order.

1. I frankly do not see what would be affected in my internet life if 
ICANN was bluntly closed today, but I can see what would be 
improvable (what does not mean that it would be necessarily 
improved). ICANN is a secretary to the IANA. The IANA is the appendix 
to the missing Internet Conventional Book, draft by RFCs. In this 
"Internet Conventional Book" (today 7101 RFCs), the text of 57 RFCs 
is not transparent to ICANN and the text of 246 is not to the US (306 
if one extends to US-ASCII dependance which causes a lot of global 
problems) (it seems through the same search I did that the text of 50 
RFC are related to NSA).

Without any prejudice against the US one can understand why many 
people would like ICANN, IANA and 1NET clarify the so called "ICANN 
and IANA globalization" to know if it is a "globalization" as per RFC 
5564 or as a new neutral and respectful globalization of every 
stakeholder treated on an equal footing that is not documented yet in 
any draft or document.

IMHO the first thing to do would be to review and finalize the RFC 
set to make it a basis for an "IP based Technical Convention for 
Value-added Digital Networking - with open appendixes" for the human 
digisphere.

Putting the cart before the horses will not help.

2. The reason for my position is that "during the last 50 years the 
scientific community has provided enormous amounts of new information 
about the nature of our world. As a society we have been using it to 
fashion technology to create a different and hopefully a better 
world. Scientific knowledge may be neutral in its implications, but 
how it is implemented in specific technologies is clearly not neutral".

As you know "Scientific discovery can lead to technical developments 
that seem clearly benign, such as nuclear power and the use of 
nuclear isotopes in medicine, or to opposite results, such as the 
creation of weapons of mass destruction. This example highlights the 
crucial responsibility of scientists to inform policy makers about 
the social choices that are enabled by technology, and the equally 
crucial responsibility of those who govern to make informed and 
responsible choices."

Please remember, "The futurists of 1947 predicted such outcomes as 
personal airplanes for mass commuting to and from work, and limitless 
energy through atomic power. They also predicted that the world of 
the future would need at most 20 large scale digital computers. Their 
crystal ball was murky; will ours be any better?"

You will certainly easily find who is the authoritative author I quote.
jfc

At 05:50 20/01/2014, George Sadowsky wrote:
>Purpose of this message
>
>A. I have sharpened the problem definition somewhat as a result of 
>some suggestions received, resulting in version 3 of the problem 
>statement.  If any reader has contributions to make to improve the 
>problem statement, please suggest them.  If we don't start from the 
>right problem statement, any solutions are not likely to be useful.
>
>B. In addition, in a recent post Ben Fuller has raised some 
>pertinent questions relating to the background of the problem 
>statement.  I think that the answers to his questions could be 
>useful in the ensuing discussion, and I am restating them in a more 
>succinct form as the second part of this message.   If you can 
>answer his questions with real knowledge and evidence, please do so.
>
>
>P1 (ver.3). US Government involvement in IANA root zone functions.
>
>1. The Internet Assigned Names and Numbers Authority (IANA) has as 
>one of its functions the vetting of changes in the Internet root 
>zone file.  The members of the team that performs the IANA functions 
>are employed by ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
>
>2. ICANN has a zero-cost contract with the US government to perform 
>the IANA functions. The US government authorizes changes made to the 
>root zone by verifying that ICANN abides by publicly documented 
>policies prior to the changes being submitted for implementation.
>
>3. Objections have been raised to US government involvement in this 
>process on several grounds, including exclusivity and concerns of 
>trust.  Objections have equally been raised to movement of the 
>function to several international organizations.
>
>4. A solution is needed that meets several criteria: (1) protection 
>of the root zone file from political or other improper interference; 
>(2) integrity, stability, continuity, security and robustness of 
>operation; (3) widespread trust by Internet users in the 
>organization executing this function and in its administrative 
>mechanisms; and (4) agreement regarding accountability that is 
>broadly perceived to be in the global public interest.
>
>5. A number of potential changes have been proposed; however, there 
>has been no consensus that any of them are broadly acceptable.
>
>
>Some pertinent questions raised by Ben Fuller
>
>1. What takes place when root zone changes are made?  What are the 
>procedures and what are the checks and balances?  [Can someone 
>supply some relevant pointers to text that will help someone understand this?]
>
>2. Have there been any controversial or problematic changes to the 
>root zone, and if so, how were they handled?  (Note that this is not 
>about IDN ccTLD issues, which are not in the province of 
>IANA.)  [Can someone respond to this question definitively?]
>
>3. The claim has apparently been made that both houses of the US 
>Congress (Parliament) have overwhelmingly voted resolutions that 
>direct the US government to maintain control over the root. [Can 
>anyone provide references or pointers to such legislation, or to any 
>evidence that this claim is not correct?]
>
>Please respond if you can provide fact-based evidence regarding any 
>of these questions.
>
>George
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
>http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss