[discuss] Continuation of problem no. 1 specification, and what could be next steps

Sat Jan 25 15:36:17 UTC 2014

At 13:49 25/01/2014, Dr. Ben Fuller wrote:
>A very good analysis by the author.  The USG is putting its weight 
>behind the Multi Stakeholder model though it is waiting to see what 
>comes from the different negotiations before any full commitment. I 
>see nothing wrong with this stance because it is the way you begin 
>negotiations. There is a diplomatic line drawn in the sand for the ITU.

Salanieta did a great job with her compilation (thank you!) but she 
should have given more URLs. What is interesting too is the US 
simple, realistic and adaptative strategic consistency shown by all 
this. Those who think they might have to adapt it to their 
propositions rather than to their pragmatic interest are pure 
dreamers. We can trust the US to follow an US strategy: this is an 
enormous warranty of stability for all.

Everything is a question of relative power, weight and potentialities 
under the cover of different diplomatic, politic, technic languages. 
Everyone says and wants the same thing concerning something eroded by 
entropy: to catalyze some commonly and personnally advantageous but 
sometimes antagonist negentropy. This is the way the Universe works - 
Pier Bak called it "Self-organized criticallity". There are semantic, 
economic, technological, somatic, etc. phases.

In the semantic phase of ours one toys with fuzzy terms such as "MS", 
"status-quo", "globalization" as just fshionable paragraphs titles, 
that please pompeous people, with no absolutely no implication on 
their future content.

Reality is, as Mike Roberts says, the satisfaction of all users. This 
satisfaction can only come through developped code that works, is 
correctly operated, trusted by the end-users and for that reason 
being used. This is the way a code becomes a law.

As a result we can observe that two different debates are growing and 
interfering in this /1NET debate:
- one is among those who genuinely think the technical status-quo is 
for ever and want to build on it.
- the other one is among those who know how, whish or hope to enhence 
the status-quos (plural) to their advantage under the cover of our 
current semantic blahbla.

ICANN and techies are interested in the first one. Govs and lead 
users in the second. Industry listen to both as short terms sales and 
long term investors.

M G

>On Jan 25, 2014, at 9:19 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro 
><salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just saw this in Circle ID describing the United States 
> Government's position on Montevideo and the ICANN IANA oversight:
> > l
> > 
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140124_usg_provides_first_official_statement_on_montevideo_brazil/
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jan 25, 2014, at 6:43 PM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" 
> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I have been following the discussions with amusement and 
> interest and could not help but throw some thoughts in. I thought I 
> should just add background that I thought was relevant to setting 
> the context for some of the issues that have often surfaced in 
> various internet governance debates.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Background
> >>
> >> 1991-1998  Jon Postel controlled the root zone file and 
> implementation by Network Solutions, Inc which had a monopoly on 
> gTLD registrations. The US took over the root to create more 
> competition and when it created ICANN, it would one day relinquish 
> this authority.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> February 1996  RFC 1918[1] describes the Address Allocation for 
> Private Internets.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> June 1998  The United States Department of Commerce issued a 
> Policy Statement on Internet Names and Numbers (Transition)[2] 
> stating that the US Government will continue to participate in 
> oversight of Internet technical management during the transition. 
> It also recognized that the Internet Assigned Names and Numbers 
> Authority were performed by the Information Sciences Institute of 
> the University of California pursuant to a contract with the United 
> States Department of Defence Research Project Agency (DARPA).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> June 30, 1999 - The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 
> Numbers (ICANN) following its incorporation the previous year was 
> still awaiting approval for its application for nonprofit status 
> and identified that it exists to coordinate a select set of the 
> Internet's technical management functions such as the assignment of 
> protocol parameters, the management of the domain name system, 
> allocation of IP address space and the management of the root server system.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> March 1, 2000 - The ICANN Board ratified the Memorandum of 
> Understanding[3] concerning the Technical Work of the Internet 
> Assigned Numbers Authority. It defines the Agreement between the 
> Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the ICANN. The MoU 
> expressly states that IANA is carrying out the work on behalf of 
> the IETF and the Internet Research Task Force. The MoU expressly 
> states that no party may transfer or assign any interest, right or 
> obligation arising under the MoU without the prior written consent 
> of each party to this MoU.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> June 30, 2005 The United States National Telecommunications and 
> Information Administration (NTIA) asserted[4] that it would 
> maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications 
> to the authoritative root zone file and that it would continue to 
> have oversight as it supports ICANN to conduct its core technical mission.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Within that same Policy Statement released by the NTIA on June 
> 30, 2005 the United States recognized that governments have 
> legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to 
> the management of their ccTLDs.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Issues
> >>
> >> 1)     Who has authority over the root zone management file? Is 
> this authority express or implied?
> >>
> >> a.     US Department of Commerce via NTIA
> >>
> >> b.    IAB via IETF
> >>
> >> c.     DARPA
> >>
> >> d.    Other
> >>
> >>
> >> 2)     Does the US Government have the sole authority to approve 
> any changes to the root zone file of the domain name system? If 
> yes, should it continue to have the sole authority?
> >>
> >>
> >> 3)     What happens when there are conflict of interest 
> situations stemming from "US national security" versus global public interest?
> >>
> >>
> >> a.     Are there any systems in place to ensure that risk is mitigated?
> >>
> >> b.    Would US national security be prioritized over other 
> country's issues?
> >>
> >>
> >> 4)     Does ICANN favour US based economic interests beyond 
> others as alluded to by some stakeholders in the Redelegation of .org and .net?
> >>
> >>
> >> 5)     Is there effective competition within ICANN and how does 
> it treat significant market power of some of its stakeholders? Does 
> it remain beholden to them because they were the initial investors 
> to the start up or have they been paid back to allow ICANN to have 
> complete autonomy?
> >>
> >>
> >> 6)     Does ICANN have autonomy in commercial decisions in 
> situations that concern stakeholders who invest in ICANN?
> >>
> >>
> >> 7)     Are there aspects of the root zone management that cause 
> stakeholders to feel that there is US unilateralism?
> >>
> >>
> >> 8)     Would re-assigning the IANA function to an international 
> body threaten the security and stability of the DNS? Should it 
> revert to the IAB via IETF?
> >>
> >>
> >> 9)     Is there legitimacy in some stakeholders demanding 
> International Oversight of ICANN and IANA rather than US unilateralism?
> >>
> >>
> >> Discussion
> >>
> >> Clearly root zone management is critical information 
> infrastructure and would fall under the US Critical Information 
> Infrastructure Protection Plans and Strategies. To demand that this 
> infrastructure be managed by any other than the US Government would 
> result in the following perceptions:-
> >>
> >> 1)     An Act of War against the United States;
> >>
> >> 2)     A Desire to Steward Global Public Interest in a manner 
> that reduces the control of any one country;
> >>
> >>
> >> The fact that there is participation by Governments within ICANN 
> shows that they support ICANN and give it legitimacy.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> GAC Penetration Rate within ICANN as at December 31, 2013
> >> If we compare the list of countries and territories that have 
> had their ccTLD assigned by IANA and identify those that 
> participate in GAC meetings within ICANN, we will see that the 
> penetration rates are as follows:
> >> ·  Asian Australasian Pacific Region - 63%
> >>
> >> ·  African Region -56%
> >>
> >> ·  Latin American Caribbean Region - 39%
> >>
> >> ·  North American Region - 25%
> >>
> >> ·  European Region - 46%
> >>
> >> What additional things can ICANN, IANA or the NTIA to restore 
> confidence in the global community when it comes to matters of perception?
> >>
> >> What is the Way Forward?
> >>
> >> At the forefront of any discussion on the assignment of the root 
> zone function is the need to as George pointed out:
> >>
> >> 1)     Protect the root zone from political or other improper interference
> >>
> >> 2)     Integrity, Stability, Continuity and Security
> >>
> >> 3)     Widespread Trust by the Global community
> >>
> >> 4)     Support of a single Unified root zone
> >>
> >> 5)     Framework for accountability mechanism that is broadly 
> accepted as being in the global public interest
> >>
> >> There are two potential administration changes that can happen 
> one is within the control of the NTIA through the Department of 
> Commerce. The other is through US Congress and Senate where a law 
> is passed making the internationalization of IANA possible. Is 
> there precedence where the US Government has voluntarily allowed 
> something that was formerly within their dominion to become subject 
> to international oversight? Would the US seriously considering 
> gifting the global community with international oversight.
> >>
> >> If they do not would this pose as a threat to having a single 
> unified root? This reminds me of an exercise in futility. Sigh
.
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] RFC 1918 was authored by Rechter, Moskowitz, Karrenberg, de 
> Groot and Lear, see: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918
> >>
> >> [2] 63 Fed. Reg. 3 1 74 1 (1 998)
> >>
> >> [3] RFC 2860 which was authored by Brian Carpenter, Fred Baker 
> and Michael Roberts, see: http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2860.txt
> >>
> >> [4] 
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2005/us-principles-internets-domain-name-and-addressing-system
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>____________________
>Dr. Ben Fuller, Dean
>Faculty of Humanities, HIV and AIDS and Sustainable Development
>International University of Managment
>Windhoek, Namibia
>bfuller at ium.edu.na, ben at fuller.na
>http://www.ium.edu.na, http://www.fuller.na
>skype: drbenfuller
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
>http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss