[discuss] Problem definition 1, version 5
mariliamaciel at gmail.com
Fri Jan 24 21:27:35 UTC 2014
Here are a few passages where I think further information could be useful.
Do you think some of this info would be easily retrieved and linked? That
would be very helpful.
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 *(link
that explains IANA function)*. The members of the team that performs the
IANA functions (*team, terms of contract*) are employed by ICANN
(*link),*the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
2. ICANN has a zero-cost contract with the US government (*link to the
contract)* to perform the IANA functions. The US government authorizes
changes made to the root zone by verifying that ICANN abides by publicly
documented policies (*link*) prior to the changes being submitted for
3. It has been a requirement for the contractor providing the IANA function
to be a US organization (l*ink, paragraph number)*, 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
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.
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:20 AM, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com
> Good point about no such thing as TMI when you move something out of its
> original context into a new context.
> My concern is to keep the problem statement short enough so that people
> can read and comprehend it easily. OTOH it's pretty short right now. I'd
> be interested in your suggestions re links in various places in the
> On Jan 22, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Peter Dengate Thrush <
> barrister at chambers.gen.nz> wrote:
>> (I'd suggest a link in statement one to a full description of the IANA
>> description and process, including the role of Verisign in publishing the
>> root zone file and its contract with NTIA, but think the "vetting" language
>> is sufficient to go on with).
> I agree with this suggestion (adding a link) not only to the sake of
> clarity, but also based on the idea that we want others to be able to
> comment and engage. Giving access to further information and background
> sources is an important way to achieve that. Please bear in mind that some
> of us replicate messages that consolidate discussions (like George's) in
> our own regional lists. There is no "TMI" in this case.
>> The steps here could be
>> *- 1st - *do we agree on the criteria George list? (CR: I do). Are there
>> any others? (CR: maybe something regarding transparency that would both
>> support trust by users and accountability?)
>> -* 2nd *- list and debate all the proposals available so far regarding
>> item "6" of George's statement. (Which Milton has initiated.)
>> - *3rd* - understand what is feasible under national and international
>> law (CR: I actually do not see feasibility of one of his proposals)
>> But a step 0 is - what are our goals with this debate? This probably
>> would help regard our focus.
>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com>wrote:
>>> > Structurally, there are three basic options for getting globalized
>>> > 1) unilateral globalism, i.e. a single state achieves global hegemony
>>> (the status quo IANA)
>>> What is not working today ?
>>> > 2) multilateral globalism, i.e., individual nation-states negotiate a
>>> universal agreement
>>> ala WCIT ? Would love to watch that conference.
>>> > 3) denationalization, i.e., delegation to a transnational private actor
>>> I like this one. I vote for Kim DotCom to take it over :-)
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>> *Carolina Rossini*
>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
>> Open Technology Institute
>> *New America Foundation*
>> + 1 6176979389
>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>> skype: carolrossini
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
> *Marília Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> Researcher and Coordinator
> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
> DiploFoundation associate
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
Researcher and Coordinator
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss