[discuss] Interesting article

Tue Jan 14 16:03:37 UTC 2014

Hello All,

Could you explain how removing a country from the Internet in the root zone would not prevent this country from being connected to the Internet?

The USA has never used this technical possibility to remove a country from the Internet (US DOC authorizes ICANN via an IANA contract, to manage the root zone).[1] In addition, even if the US makes this move in the future, it will have little impact, since the DNS system is robust and decentralized enough to sustain any changes in the root zone file, at least in the short term perspective.

Thanks,

Nathalie

________________________________
 From: Vladimir Radunovic <vladar at diplomacy.edu>
To: 'Adam Peake' <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>; discuss at 1net.org 
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: [discuss] Interesting article

Agree with Adam it would be a good topic for Brazil.

A diplomatic perspective of the options for "internationalisation" of ICANN,
IANA contract and root zone was provided recently by Jovan in his blog:
http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/international-inviolability-root-zone

Brings some concrete ideas to follow up on within Brazil process maybe.

Best,

    Vlada

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf
Of Adam Peake
Sent: 14 January 2014 16:02
To: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Interesting article

On Jan 14, 2014, at 11:42 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:

> 
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Roland Perry
<roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> In message
<CAMzo+1bYKXDJVt_zckNGnacn32j4qwEXXGsV8L3YMo2tsYd3XQ at mail.gmail.com>, at
07:37:24 on Tue, 14 Jan 2014, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com> writes
> 
> I'm not sure what do you mean about "requirements of US government".
> 
> If you read the tender documents for the latest IANA contract, you'll find
quite a bit of (very US-centric) stuff about the required geographic
credentials of any qualifying organisation (and certain of its staff).
> 
> I read all 65 pages of it, and this is true ONLY as the contractor for the
IANA function, regardless if it is ICANN or not.
> 
> Being ICANN the contractor has probably some positives, but on the other
hand confuses a lot of people since the role as a contractor and policy
development and other roles are (or are supposed to be) totally separate.
> 
> So if you abstract the IANA contract, besides the requirements as
US/California non-profit corporation there are no other requirements from
the USG.
> 
> So the US-centric issue is not ICANN, but IANA.
> 

Check the affirmation of commitments
<http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc/affirmation-of-commitments-30s
ep09-en.htm> 

8. ICANN affirms its commitments to: ... (b) remain a not for profit
corporation, headquartered in the United States of America with offices
around the world to meet the needs of a global community; (end quote)

Now this is a good topic for the meeting in Brazil: globalization of ICANN,
what a new affirmation of commitments might look like (building on what
we've got, which doesn't look so bad), how to design a new host country
agreement, etc.  Add globalization of the IANA functions and there are two
pretty heavy topics.  Take a lot more time than we have between now and
April 23-24, but can make a start in Brazil.

Adam

> -J
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140114/7d085970/attachment.html>