[discuss] Why oversight? (was Re: Opportunity for input on the development process forIANAoversight transition plan)
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Wed Apr 2 11:14:16 UTC 2014
Without need to revert to the potential of evil conspiracy, there is an established concept of separation of duties in security, audit and governance. The concept that parties who share a broad but not identical interest in providing a similar service will not or would never align those interests to abuse or game the system is not sufficient safeguard. Is it a likely scenario that they would, perhaps not, but we are supposed to be improving on the system. I do not believe that the oversight of everyone potentially impacted is the solution either as we need to understand needed skills and efficiencies in the system, but having some, even light touch, but credible nongovernmental oversight structure facilitates transition more that just "trust us".
Sent from my iPad
> On Apr 1, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Jefsey <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> At 14:58 01/04/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> A third answer I've seen appears to be that we need a place for
>> governments to supervise everything. I think that view is
>> antithetical to the multi-stakeholder approach we're supposedly using.
>> If people are really opposed to that approach, they should say that.
> they definitly are.
> But they understand they are opposed to the NTIA MSism, familiar and unhappy with the ICANN MSism, more happy but without illusion with the IGF MS compromise, and used to the ITU MSism. MSism is a tool, we name "concertation" in Europe. It depends on who is at the table and if there are mandatory prerequisites or not. This is related to the NTIA "no governement" diktat: people elect and pay government to carry that job. You tell them to participate and that you will help: they do not want to be engineers, they want to be users and to get what they expect for the money of their taxes. This includes to be protected from US global interests interferences.
> Let it be understood once for all: we do *not* want a policy and a technology designed in the interest of the US network edges (providers and surveillance). This was voted in Dubai. OECD countries officialy supported the US there. Elections throughout EU (France this WE, Germany being uncertain about Russia, etc.) show that the OECD support is weakening. We do not want neo-liberalism neither in policy nor in technology. The strategic reports to the US President and Presidentially signed non-applied strategy I quoted yesterday explain why it is dangerous for the US as well as for everyone.
> If you want to commit suicide for Google, this is your choice. It is more and more obviusly not the choice of the world.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss