[discuss] Options for root zone (was Re: Interesting article)
apisanty at gmail.com
Fri Jan 17 04:05:29 UTC 2014
so, to delve deeper into your exercise: the verbs in your text are
"secure", "force", "overrule", "dictate" - all about force and control.
Can you reshape this discourse or provide a mirror image where the words
are "care", "agree", and similar?
Re Jovan's diplomacy immunity, don't you think it just pushes the same old
question into a new space, without actually providing any real solution?
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Well, just for the exercise, let me try and outline some requirements.
> In accordance with the multistakeholder model for Internet governance
> The function for final authorisation of any changes to the root zone rests
> solely with ICANN
> Changes to the root zone, once authorised by ICANN internal processes,
> must not be subject to any changes or alterations by any external party.
> The root zone must be secured against the possibility of operators being
> forced to make changes not in full accord with the ICANN stipulated changes
> ICANN authorisation processes must be secured against any possibility of
> any external body being able to overrule or dictate changes agreed to by
> ICANN processes
> Thats a two minute effort so I am sure it can be improved on. Probably in
> the process of getting any agreement to this there is going to be a
> requirement that GAC is fully consulted, and Jovan's suggestion of (I guess
> an A root) being secured with diplomatic immunity probably makes sense. But
> thats beyond immediate requirements.
> Is that useful?
> Ian Peter
> -----Original Message----- From: Suzanne Woolf
> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 12:17 PM
> To: Ian Peter
> Cc: Jorge Amodio ; discuss at 1net.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] Options for root zone (was Re: Interesting article)
> If I may attempt a restatement of the issue….
> As a technical analysis might put it: For at least some stakeholders, one
> requirement for a legitimate, trustworthy system of oversight for the
> contents of the root zone is that the US government (or, to generalize, any
> government) *can't* act in the way described. This requirement has not been
> met to date.
> We can stipulate that the US government *hasn't* acted in the way people
> fear. As a practical matter, and as already noted by others here, I think
> it would be extremely difficult and dangerous for the US government to do
> so. However, unless I've seriously misunderstood some previous discussion
> here, this practical limitation is not necessarily considered responsive to
> the requirement, or to the question of whether it's been met.
> I think the exact formulation of that requirement, and others we might be
> able to agree on for oversight of the contents of the root zone, is worth
> discussing. Wearing my "techie" hat, I'll say it's very helpful to have
> both the requirements analysis for the ideal system, and the analysis of
> how the system we actually have behaves in the real world. I hope we can do
> On Jan 16, 2014, at 2:03 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Not the point Jorge - read the article linked below where this question
>> is addressed in the opening paragraphs. It doesn't matter - the fact is,the
>> control exists and that is widely seen as problematic and unilateral
>> control. ICANN will not be trusted internationally until this is fixed (and
>> the suggestions in this article towards diplomatic immunity for the root
>> zone would be one way to achieve this).
>> Ian Peter
>> -----Original Message----- From: Jorge Amodio
>> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 9:22 PM
>> To: Ian Peter
>> Cc: Brian E Carpenter ; discuss at 1net.org
>> Subject: Re: [discuss] Options for root zone (was Re: Interesting article)
>> Under the current architecture and state of affairs tell me at least one
>> instance in the 30+ years of existence of the DNS where the USG has used or
>> threaten to use it's alleged "control" of the root zone.
>> On Jan 16, 2014, at 3:30 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>> Brian wrote
>>> If I could have three wishes, the first
>>> two would be unconditional cancellation of the NTIA
>>> contract and relocation of ICANN's seat to Geneva.
>>> Yep, I'll take the first two as well and for my third wish I'll have
>>> another 3 wishes to use up later as we progress.
>>> Here is a good paper outlining some possibilities for achieving
>>> guaranteed independence for the root zone. well worth reading and
>>> discussing as a way forward
>>> Ian Peter
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss