[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 4, Issue 145

Mon Mar 17 11:36:17 UTC 2014

"...several nations known for protecting data rights": this is basically
Europe with complicated exceptions, right?

--c.a.

On 03/16/2014 06:32 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> On 16-Mar-14 16:56, Steve Crocker wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 16, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> As for IANA, I favor a mesh of MOUs with the clients (ICANN, IETF,
>>>  Root Server Operators, RIRs, ...) and Host country agreements with
>>>  several nations known for protecting data rights, with oversight
>>> by a Multistakeholder panel of IANA Stewards.
>>
>> Avri,
>>
>> You’re specifying a solution.
> 
> Yes, i was asked for a possible solution so I gave one.  The answer was
> given more to show that a solution was possible, than to start working
> on solutions prematurely.
> 
> I had previously, as you requested, stated a principle.  As far as I
> could tell, the question stemmed from thinking about the principle I
> offered and what it might mean in real life.
> 
> I understand you do not agree with this principle. Nonetheless I persist
> in believing it is a principle worthy of extended discussion but the
> wider community.
> 
>> What’s the problem?
> 
> The problem is that strict functional separation cannot be done in ICANN
> as currently constituted.  It is contrary to its organizational
> structure and to the philosophy of integrating policy with
> implementation, which I also support.
> 
> So if you accept the principle of strict functional separation, between
> policy and administration of the critical IANA resource, we have an
> implementation problem.
> 
> For you list of issues, it looks like we have some work to do on
> defining processes for dealing with such issues while maintining a
> strict wall between ICANN's policy machinations and the operation of IANA.
> 
>>> There is also the issue of ICANN being subject to US law.  This
>>> remains a problem if ICANN plans to keep the administrative
>>> function after transition.
>>
>> The question has already been asked and I’ll ask again.  What is the
>> specific problem about being subject to US law?  As a general matter,
>> rule of law is usually considered one of the U.S.’s very strongest
>> qualities.
>>
> 
> This has been answered many times by many people, but I will answer yet
> again.  US law on occasion restricts who a company does business with.
> Losing NTIA oversight does not change that.  IANA should not be subject
> to such vagaries of national law.
> 
> Beyond that, US law allows infractions of rights against the privacy etc
> of data and pervasive monitoring that may not be appropriate for the
> future of IANA and which are not consistent with other rule of law
> jurisdictions.
> 
> avri
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 