[discuss] Problem definition 1, version 5

Oscar A. Robles-Garay orobles at nic.mx
Wed Jan 22 17:56:01 UTC 2014


I think the definition of the problem suggested by George is pretty well covered.

You are adding arguments to no. 6, and by the way I don't see (yet) "denationalization" as an option, I don't think we have something besides (or parallel) to governments/nations that can exert authority (the right to exert violence) over a relationship among individuals.


-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:17 AM
To: 'George Sadowsky'; discuss at 1net.org List
Subject: Re: [discuss] Problem definition 1, version 5

The statement seems to skirt the real problem. The basic problem with IANA is that we want the Internet to be globally compatible, which creates a requirement for fully globalized governance and coordination of the DNS root zone. But political and contractual authority over it is currently in the hands of a single sovereign. The problem is one of the distribution of authority; it is fundamentally a political and institutional problem. 

Structurally, there are three basic options for getting globalized governance:

1) unilateral globalism, i.e. a single state achieves global hegemony (the status quo IANA)
2) multilateral globalism, i.e., individual nation-states negotiate a universal agreement
3) denationalization, i.e., delegation to a transnational private actor 

There are various hybrids of 1) and 2) (e.g., unilateral power could be shared with a smaller coalition of states) and various flavors of 3), but those are the basic choices. 

We should be debating which of those 3 structures to start with.

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:38 PM
To: discuss at 1net.org List
Subject: [discuss] Problem definition 1, version 5

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?


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

discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org

More information about the discuss mailing list