[discuss] Problem definition 1, version 5

[Nathalie Coupet]

agreed

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 22, 2014, at 4:26 AM, Grigori Saghyan <gregor at arminco.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> +1
> Grigori Saghyan
> ISOC.AM
> On 22.01.2014 7:37, George Sadowsky wrote:
>> Purpose of this message
>> 
>> To distribute version 5 of the problem statement.  Some minor
>> wordsmithing has been done since version 4.   Do we have agreement,
>> an can we proceed with this?
>> 
>> 
>> Disclaimer
>> 
>> I am a member of the Board of Directors of ICANN.  I believe that
>> this affiliation is fairly well known.
>> 
>> The opinions that I express on this list are my own.  I participate
>> on this list in my individual capacity.  ICANN may or may not share
>> the opinions that I express here.  I take no direction from ICANN
>> regarding how I participate on this list, as well as on other lists
>> focusing on Internet governance issues.
>> 
>> I note that I have been involved in ICT activities for economic and
>> social development since 1973, and in the training and use
>> specifically of the Internet globally since 1991.  Both dates
>> substantially precede the formation of ICANN.
>> 
>> 
>> P1 (ver.5). US Government involvement in IANA root zone functions.
>> 
>> 1. The Internet Assigned Names and Numbers Authority (IANA) has as
>> one of its functions the vetting of changes in the Internet root
>> zone file.  The members of the team that performs the IANA
>> functions are employed by ICANN, the Internet Corporation for
>> Assigned Names and Numbers.
>> 
>> 2. ICANN has a zero-cost contract with the US government to perform
>> the IANA functions. The US government authorizes changes made to
>> the root zone by verifying that ICANN abides by publicly documented
>> policies prior to the changes being submitted for implementation.
>> 
>> 3. It has been a requirement for the contractor providing the IANA
>> function to be a US organization, resulting in the provision of the
>> IANA function being subject to US law and the decisions of the US
>> judiciary.
>> 
>> 4. Objections have been raised to US government involvement in this
>> process on several grounds, including exclusivity and concerns of
>> trust. Objections have equally been raised to movement of the
>> function to several international organizations.
>> 
>> 5. Acceptable solutions for assignment of the IANA root zone
>> function should meet several criteria: (1) protection of the root
>> zone from political or other improper interference; (2) integrity,
>> stability, continuity, security and robustness of the
>> administration of the root zone; (3) widespread trust by Internet
>> users in the administration of this function; (4) support of a
>> single unified root zone; and (5) agreement regarding an
>> accountability mechanism for this function that is broadly accepted
>> as being in the global public interest.
>> 
>> 6. A number of potential solutions have been proposed; however,
>> there has been no consensus that any of them are broadly
>> acceptable.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ discuss mailing
>> list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> 
> 
> 
> - -- 
> Grigori Saghyan
> PGP Key ID: 0x48E4D5DC
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> 
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS3467AAoJEBp2GIFI5NXcKEAH/1afOeFPmHtOQYgPNkCssRPP
> sFl9YtxyTrJK2EQbfE0QqCAE7kxyRIp5oKCwTbs5kkuvzxp7WvHhYhch3WQ3KvAZ
> flE3IHLnD/u6JMPSLtH+vow42YtmUt8O4bafvkcVPu8TJNsqczjh1IVgU+Ns3HYT
> dB/MlZUuK8c0TTKZJfx+dVaC+NkpNhV6v+OIhAxEu2TnAVzZszGCaQ7LnQ6xexTh
> 5nXUiVJ0jSEL0qFtuIac0Vf82Nz80ZsPYIei1NSTVvlsyV5Ai75yWZTs16IF3o5Z
> tsp4SYY7hqzRKFgYaucEmbZgqcUsZ/FwJVO84n8KvYnvzb/Pcy07O5Q3bDSMqSg=
> =l4ih
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss