[discuss] Problem statement P1

Tue Jan 21 22:11:27 UTC 2014

Inline

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 21/01/2014 20:51, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
> > I understand these are facts.  Why are they "issues"?
>
> Isn't it the case in politics that if enough people *say*
> something is an issue, then it *is* an issue? I feel that's
> what we're dealing with here, unfortunately.
>

"Only this, and nothing more" - but here, "quoth the raven, Nevermore" is
not an available option. So dig in we must.

Still, the cause of the meeting is totally disjoint from the results of the
meeting that will satisfy the complaining government(s.)

"Fix Internet governance" is known not to fix lawless surveillance. The
host country is not interested in fixing lawless surveillance. It wants to
extract a price, not a solution.

It is clear by now that one part of the satisfactions it desires lies
within George's well planned research program, though it may be uneachable.

What do we do with the rest of Internet governance? Do we wait for the 11
additional governments to be seated and write their cahier de charges?

Or, start identifying non-ICANN issues in Internet governance which are
worth an attempt to solve them, since we are all (except governments, yeah)
already talking?

Or disband?

Alejandro Pisanty

>
>     Brian
>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On
> Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
> > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 1:00 PM
> > To: John Curran; discuss at 1net.org
> > Subject: Re: [discuss] Problem statement P1
> >
> > Am Mon, 20 Jan 2014 07:45:07 -1000
> > schrieb John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org>:
> >
> >> On Jan 19, 2014, at 11:06 AM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> The USG authorizes changes made to the root zone as well as changes
> >>> to the root zone's registration (aka "Whois") database by verifying
> >>> ICANN abides by publicly documented policies prior to the changes
> >>> being submitted to the Root Zone Maintainer for implementation.
> >> This is a very important distinction which requires consideration with
> >> respect to the the problem statement.  In particular, there are two
> >> distinct issues of direct and unique USG involvement with the DNS root
> >> zone: one via the IANA function contract with ICANN and a completely
> >> different path via the Root Zone Maintainer process.
> >>
> >> I would argue that both issues would need to be addressed to satisfy
> >> many in the international community, but that does not mean that they
> >> are the same problem, only that they are interrelated.  Reinforcing
> >> this belief, I can readily envision potential solutions which are only
> >> applicable to "US Government involvement in IANA root zone functions"
> >> and others which are only applicable to "US Government involvement in
> >> DNS root zone maintenance", and hence would recommend bifurcating the
> >> problem statement into two and focusing on the IANA root zone aspects
> >> first.
> >
> > A third, distinct and also interrelated issue is that of the IANA
> function contractor being subject to US law.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >
> >
> >                                                                 * * *
> >
> > This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
> > confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it
> in
> > error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by
> reply
> > e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy
> it or
> > use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
> > person. Thank you for your cooperation.
> >
> >                                                                 * * *
> >
> > To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
> > inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal
> tax
> > advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is
> not
> > intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
> (1)
> > avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
> > and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to
> another
> > party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
> >
> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140121/2b8ea74e/attachment-0001.html>