[discuss] Why oversight? (was Re: Opportunity for input on the development process forIANAoversight transition plan)

joseph alhadeff joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Wed Apr 2 22:50:52 UTC 2014

Just to be clear, I was talking about the security, audit and governance 
practices outside of government.  I see no reason for the government to 
play a special role in the oversight here.  The concept was not to 
replace USG with another government.  They are one among the 
stakeholders, in this sense, nothing more... I would agree that in the 
broad governance policy issues an equal footing with broad participation 
of interested parties makes sense      and is needed, but in issues that 
have technical considerations then we have to apply the amusement park 
rule of you have to be this tall to get on the ride.  There is a minimum 
skill set required to be part of a consultation on technical and 
operational issues that require specific knowledge and background...

On 4/2/2014 2:48 PM, JFC Morfin wrote:
> At 13:14 02/04/2014, Joseph Alhadeff wrote:
>> Without need to revert to the potential of evil conspiracy,
> Dear Joseph,
> I appreciate the way you evaluate WSIS consensus and world democracy :-)!
>> 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".
> I understand that you just want me not to trust my democratically 
> elected government, and the security, audit and governance experts I 
> pay through my taxes. I fully understand that after Iraq, NSA, and the 
> root lies you do not personally trust the US government and prefer to 
> check and manage things by yourself, but I only suspect my own 
> government of mischief not of duplicity. This seems to be the 
> difference between you and me. We keep faith in the impact of our votes.
> I do not say that the solution is an oversight of everyone potentially 
> impacted; I say that everyone potentially impacted should be treated 
> on an equal footing. In applying equal footing, I do not preselect the 
> participants. This is the NTIA MSism vs. the IETF one.
> jfc
>> 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.
>> >
>> > Andrew,
>> > 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.
>> > jfc
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > discuss mailing list
>> > discuss at 1net.org
>> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

More information about the discuss mailing list