[discuss] Options for root zone (was Re: Interesting article)

Fri Jan 17 15:38:21 UTC 2014

+1

Peter Dengate Thrush

> On 16/01/2014, at 11:05 pm, Alejandro Pisanty <apisanty at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Ian,
> 
> 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? 
> 
> Alejandro Pisanty
> 
> 
>> 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 both.
>> 
>> 
>> Suzanne
>> 
>> 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.
>>> 
>>> -Jorge
>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/international-inviolability-root-zone
>>>> 
>>>> Ian Peter
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Química UNAM
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140117/3dd54f54/attachment.html>