[discuss] Fwd: Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"

Thu Feb 13 21:42:32 UTC 2014

> Ian Peter
>  
> PS I would also suggest that ICANN utilise an outside independent consultancy based outside of the USA to conduct this study and consult all stakeholders and prepare the directions paper, in the interests of expediency and efficiency.
>  

It appears that there is beginning to emerge a way forward.

However much many of us might dislike it, the fact is that the U.S. Congress and senior govt ministries hold trump cards if a proposal emerges that offends them.  In the present atmosphere of worldwide terrorist attacks and threats, they are easily offended.

Although some might favor a proposal that dwells on the many deficiencies of USG behavior toward ICANN and IANA, it would be much more productive to have one that results in the active engagement of the U.S. in making it happen, rather than being consigned to the large dustbin of schemes that attracted political disfavor. The wording of Ian's PS above is the type of thing that attracts "disfavor."

One additional point to consider in constructing a new arrangement is that Verisign operates the master root server, from which all the updates are distributed to other servers, under a contractual cooperative agreement that is entirely separate from USG links to ICANN.  It would not accomplish much in the way of global IG MS if we got the IANA changes, but the Department of Commerce and Verisign continued, as they do today, to have a choke hold on updates to the A server.

- Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140213/8116f844/attachment.html>