[discuss] Continuation of problem no. 1 specification, and what could be next steps
Rinalia Abdul Rahim
rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
Thu Jan 23 04:17:31 UTC 2014
I like your structured approach. I find it "grappleable" (if there is such
a word), clear and supports learning.
I am interested in exploring Problem 1 and options for a solution. I would
support continuing with the effort.
I think pursuit of another topic such as cybercrime is not mutually
exclusive to pursuit of Problem 1. Whatever topic the group or sub-group
chooses to pursue, I hope that a topic facilitator would emerge in the way
that you are attempting to facilitate.
On Jan 23, 2014 12:02 PM, "George Sadowsky" <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
> I've taken the day off from 1net, and am just now going through the many
> posts that have been made to the list during the day.
> I'd like to start by endorsing Mike Roberts' comment below:
> On Jan 22, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Mike Roberts wrote:
> > The general trend of recent actions by NTIA, IETF, ICANN and others has
> been to stress the desirability of an apolitical approach to root
> technology and operations. It is largely so today, as the many process
> contributions to this list demonstrate.
> > The important antecedent question is whether a global political
> foundation for IANA serves the interests of all users.
> The lesson that I draw from this is that while the ultimate resolution of
> IG problems may well have a political element, I'd rather start by trying
> to determine what's best for the future of the Internet and and try to make
> such a bottom-up approach work.
> Where do I think we are?
> If you're interested in the problem statement regarding the IANA root zone
> function, we're on version 6, and a variety of suggestions are still coming
> in. There's no real reason to close off this specification; in fact, one
> could argue that further iteration of the problem definition increases our
> understanding of the situation, and that might possibly prove the quality
> of thought that goes into proposed solutions.
> Originally I had thought of trying to structure a discussion based upon
> collecting a variety of possible solutions first, and then collecting
> comments on each one, comments being associated with specific criteria to
> be satisfied that are in the problem definition. I tend to be rather
> structured in such things, and I envisioned a large table for each possible
> approach, with rows for the criteria, and columns for the pluses, the
> minuses, and the possible operational difficulties for each of the
> criteria. Cells would be filled with relatively short comments and
> identified with the name of the commenter. It would be the way I might
> approach it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best or only
> way. In addition, a mailing list is not the ideal vehicle for capturing
> text to be added to such a structure, and there would be a fair amount of
> work involved. I would be willing to try it if there were support for it.
> I was pleasantly surprised to read Jovan Kurbalija's recent article:
> and note possible scenarios that I had not considered before. Perhaps
> this simply illustrates my naïvété in political science. There are a
> number of scenarios that I suspect not everyone may be aware of, and that
> some of us know because of our experience and specialization, and I think
> that there is merit in naming, displaying and defining them so we are all
> discussing the same things, just as (I hope)with the problem statement
> On the other hand, perhaps it would be useful to move away from problems
> that are closely related to ICANN and work on another problem statement
> that we think represents a real problem in Internet governance (however we
> regard the term). I suggest that cybercrime might be an interesting subject
> to look at. I think that there is general agreement that the area is
> problematic, yet where does the problem lie? What is the nature of the
> problem to be solved, and where is its locus? What's wrong? How will we
> know when we have a solution for fixing what is wrong?
> If we were to shift to another problematic area, whether cybercrime or
> something else, we could continue to refine slowly the the IANA-related
> problem definition and means for evaluating alternatives at the same time,
> or not. Is there support for going in this direction. Are there better
> issues than cybercrime that we should focus on? What are they? Do we have
> champions on the list for some such issues?
> So where would people like to go (if anywhere)?
> Problem statement no. 1 (version 6)
> Several suggestions have been made to further refine the problem
> statement, I'm including them, but I'm bracketing them so that you can
> easily see what has been proposed. If there is no pushback on the changes,
> I'll remove the brackets and adjust the text properly a couple of versions
> 1. The Internet Assigned Names and Numbers Authority (IANA) has as one of
> its functions the [vetting] [administration] of [changes] [change requests]
> 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.[ ["After IANA verifies that
> ICANN has conformed to publicly documented review policies, the US
> government authorizes that changes be made to the root zone.]
> 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 [international] 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.
> A personal statement
> I am just one member of this list. I represent my views and no one
> else's. In making whatever contributions I can make, my goal is to
> encourage substantive discussion regarding real issues, hoping to help to
> resolve them. If people on the list resonate to what I bring up, the
> conversation will continue the conversation. If they don't, then the
> discussion will wind down naturally. In due time, it's my hope that the
> 1net Steering Committee will enter into the discussion and provide some
> guidance and direction. Until then, we're on our own; let's make the most
> of it.
> I see some recurrence of conspiracy theory and ICANN bashing on the list.
> I think that it's counterproductive, and I hope that it will not continue.
> Let's work for increased understanding of the issues and positive and
> useful outputs from our discussions. There is a lot that we can do.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss