[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 4, Issue 145

Mon Mar 17 12:06:50 UTC 2014

Hi,

On 17-Mar-14 07:36, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> "...several nations known for protecting data rights": this is basically
> Europe with complicated exceptions, right?
>

Don't know.

I think this is something where those doing the shepherding would need 
have criteria and do a bit of serious research.

I admit the first place that always come to my mind is Iceland.

avri

> --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
>>
>
>