[discuss] Problem statement P1

Mon Jan 20 19:17:37 UTC 2014

John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:

> On Jan 20, 2014, at 8:00 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> ...
> >> I would argue that both issues would need to be addressed to
> >> satisfy many in the international community, but that does not
> >> mean that they are the same problem, only that they are
> >> interrelated.  Reinforcing this belief, I can readily envision
> >> potential solutions which are only applicable to "US Government
> >> involvement in IANA root zone functions" and others which are only
> >> applicable to "US Government involvement in DNS root zone
> >> maintenance", and hence would recommend bifurcating the problem
> >> statement into two and focusing on the IANA root zone aspects
> >> first.
> > 
> > A third, distinct and also interrelated issue is that of the IANA
> > function contractor being subject to US law.
> 
> Norbert - 
> 
>   Can you suggest changes to the problem statement to incorporate
> this issue? (or are you suggesting that there should be a third
> problem statement?)

Maybe add after "2." and before "3.* the following:

2a. It has been a requirement for the contractor providing the IANA
function to be a US organization, resulting in the provision of the
IANA function being subject to US law (including future changes) and
the decisions of the US judiciary.

Greetings,
Norbert

> From: George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
> Subject: [discuss] P1 version 3: Added detail and a request for
> useful background information Date: January 19, 2014 at 6:50:02 PM HST
> To: "discuss at 1net.org List" <discuss at 1net.org>
> 
> 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.