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

Thu Feb 13 22:25:48 UTC 2014

Thanks Mike. Yes, I agree, I do think a path forward is beginning to emerge.

Yes, two important points there and my wording could have been better as regards consultancy. But equally there is a trust issue if the (proposed)  consultancy was US based which needs to be considered. Anyway that’s detail for later, and I agree in any wording we could do without the “based outside the USA”. And I agree the active involvement of US towards such a solution would be good. And I note NTIA’s reaction to EU statement today as favourable in terms of the direction we are proposing.

Yes, I was wondering about the Verisign issue. I don’t know how they would react to the instruction to change coming from ICANN rather than Dept of Commerce, but I can’t see why they would be upset by this once an agreement was in place. But if they were not co-operative with the emerging multistakeholder solution, there is no reason not to thank them for their past service and move the A root elsewhere. I am imagining at this stage that most of the root operators, if not all,  will move with a global supported solution. 

Ian Peter

From: Mike Roberts 
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 8:42 AM
To: mailto:discuss at 1net.org 
Subject: [discuss] Fwd: Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"

  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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140214/e8f59fd5/attachment-0001.html>