[discuss] IANA K - a problem for where?
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Mon Jan 20 06:54:47 UTC 2014
While I appreciate the attempt to find actual questions is our conversations, I go back to recent questions being raised about the purpose of 1Net and the detail of this conversation. Are we looking at this as a Brazil issue? If so, the level of discourse related to a possible governance principle is way too detailed. Furthermore the conversation seems to highlight checks and balances and proper functioning (with one possible exception) highlighted by a concern for possible badness, mischief or abuse. That is obviously an oversimplification of the long conversation, but did I miss the smoking gun of abuse/failure?
The reason I raise this is what someone once termed the dial tone effect (ok so I'm old enough to use landline analogies) - essentially a presumption that when you pick up a receiver there will be a dial tone. While the Internet has demonstrated resiliency in light of many issues, I do not think it is advisable to take its functioning for granted. As the group discusses possible solutions to problems, real or possible, I would like us to pay similar attention to the concept of the critical importance of continued functioning and stability of the Net and the need to review and test any proposal prior to deployment for that. We should hold fast to a main principle of the Hippocratic oath - first do no harm.
Sent from my iPad
> On Jan 20, 2014, at 5:41 AM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
> the ICANN steps and the Verisign steps, various syntactic and semantic checks are made prior to the change being moved to the next step (being sent to NTIA in ICANN's case, being signed and pushed to the master distribution server in Verisign's case).
> In the case of ICANN, I can't actually think of a unilateral action that can be made that is not checked by at least 2 other parties.
More information about the discuss