[discuss] Problem definition 1, version 4

Thu Jan 23 02:05:12 UTC 2014

You are correct in that paragraph 4 contains opinions, and that they address the polar ends of the spectrum.  I see it as a part of the problem statement, since if the first set of opinions didn't exist, we would not see this issue as a problem.  So it's motivation for the discussion.

As for the factual basis, there are long arguments on both sides, but I believe that it's a fact that both sets of opinions exist, and are each shared by a sizable number of people.

On Jan 21, 2014, at 2:50 AM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:

> I offer the following observation regarding the problem statement.
> 
> Statements 1-3 are (or appear to be) statements of fact.  Unless there are good reasons to believe otherwise, they seem to be true.
> 
> Statement 4 is quite different.  It consists of two opinions (of course, it is a "fact" that some people are saying these things, but that does not make the statements themselves fact).  We should not treat either opinion to be valid (i.e., to have a basis in fact, as opposed to perception).  I also think it is a false dichotomy to see these as the only positions that should be stated in the problem set, or to see these as diametrically opposes positions.  I certainly don't think we can assume they are equally fact-based.  We need to understand the factual basis of each of these assertions, and to weigh whether either or both of them are worthy of being in a problem set.
> 
> Statement 5 is only necessary if the first opinion in Statement 4 is grounded in fact.
> 
> I recognize that perceptions often drive opinions, and that a group of people with the same viewpoint (whether sincerely held or adopted for the sake of expediency) can be a powerful force.  We shouldn't gloss over the basis of this perception and take it as true.  We should push back on this opinion (as well as the second) and see the extent to which it is based in fact.
> 
> We may (and almost certainly will) have to deal with it, but how we deal with it differs based on the extent to which it is based on fact.
> 
> Greg Shatan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 9:29 PM
> To: discuss at 1net.org List
> Subject: [discuss] Problem definition 1, version 4
> 
> Purpose of this message
> 
> To distribute version 4 of the problem statement.  Point 3 has been added, and an additional criterion for an acceptable solution, currently (4) has been added.
> 
> In addition, words have been added to make more precise some of the criteria for an acceptable solution.
> 
> 
> Note
> 
> This is version 4 of the problem statement.  Thanks to all who have helped to improve the original definition.
> 
> I suggest that we let this stand for about 24 hours in the event that there are further changes or objections.
> 
> At the same time, let's start thinking about how we might want to proceed to outline potential solutions.  My sense is that we might start by enumerating them, each with a very short description, and then, only after a period of enumeration, start to evaluate their advantages and disadvantages using both the criteria in paragraph 5 below and other criteria.
> 
> So, if I may, last call for comments on the problem specification .....
> 
> 
> 
> P1 (ver.4). 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. A solution is needed for the IANA root zone function that meets 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 perceived to be in the global public interest.
> 
> 6. A number of potential changes 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
> 
> 
> 
>                                                                * * *
> 
> 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