[discuss] Roadmap for globalizing IANA

[joseph alhadeff]

Milton:

The "broader implication" of my position is that I am questioning the 
solutions being proposed.  The entire governance process was formed in a 
much less than perfect fashion when you consider some of the process 
chaos that broke out after Jon Postel's passing. The system is less than 
perfect - agreed.   I understand the frustration of a discussion that 
has taken 16 years with some evolution, milestones and inflection 
points, but lacking the end results that many were hoping for.  There 
have been folks who take issue on current implementation arguing of 
abuse and possible abuse, you have provided more detail than most 
related to your concerns, so I appreciate that. However when we go from 
a know solution that may be imperfect but working to a proposed 
solution, it seems that the questions as to process, credibility and 
assurance are not only legitimate, but necessary.  For those who rely on 
the Internet for commercial and other functions, the stability, 
functionality and lack of fragmentation are essential elements of 
concern.  This issue is much less of a question of comfort with the 
status quo than it is a need for close analyisis of proposed models as 
workable solutions.  There is no intent to prejudge solutions as good or 
bad, but there is likewise no taking them on faith.  One of the 
unfortunate results of legal education in the US is first starting with 
the worst case scenario and moving from there.  A number of folks on 
this list do not consider the question of oversight to be a red herring 
and relying solely on the constraints of the current ICANN functions on 
this new proposed group as insufficient process related to oversight.  
The separation of duties between policy and operation often bleed across 
each other as there often policy implications in methods of implementation.

I indicated that I understood the proposed answers during the course of 
the threads but did not accept the conclusions you reached in the 
solution. While it was nice of you to put them all on page it did not 
change the outcome.  The articulation of process questions was not to 
tease out the proposed answers, but to highlight concerns that remained 
despite the proposed answers.    To me it still presents itself as the 
substitution of one form of potential problem for a potentially 
different form of probalem.    Finally there are actually ways to test 
proposals and processes which go from simulations to scenario analysis 
to actual tests of sub elements of process.  While I think the 
Romney/Obama example is not applicable to this issue, it is interesting 
to note that many people have trouble supporting a candidate who has had 
no legislative or executive experience because they have no experience 
curve to use as a benchmark...

At this point it may be best to agree to disagree...

Best-

Joe


On 3/5/2014 11:22 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
>> You mention the concern about "predictable and reliable service" --
>> do you know of any instances where the current set-up has failed to provide that?
> Examples have been provided.
>
> IANA/ICANN and Verisign are under contract to the USG now. If they provide bad service they could lose the contract. That is our only protection.
>
> If we are going to end USG control, that contract will no longer exist.
>
> The USG contracting relationship is actually a bad way to ensure good service over the long term, because moving those operations would be costly and destabilizing. That makes the contract "sticky" and not easy to switch. Also, we have linked indelibly ICANN's policy making function to root zone management, and so changing the IANA contract would also have major implications for the policy making function.
>
> Those things should be separated, and the technical functions given to a different party.
>   
> I would place far more trust in registries whose core business depends on the accurate and secure implementation of root zone changes to make them. The incentives are aligned and no one has provided a single analytical point to show they are not. If you can, please explain why an organization controlled by registries would fail to provide registries with good service, either through in-sourcing or out-sourcing. Explain how adding "oversight" from dozens of other stakeholders with no real stake in root zone entry accuracy would be likely to improve the day-to-day implementation of this technical function. I do not expect such an explanation to be forthcoming.
>
> I suspect the broader implication of Joseph's position is that he supports the status quo - unilateral control of the DNS root by the USG. If that is true, he should just come out and openly say so.
>
> Because that, of course, is no longer a politically viable position.
>
> There is consensus outside the United States, and probably more than majority within it, that the status quo is not sustainable. Fadi Chehade himself has openly said this, and the USG has not objected or contradicted him, so I think everyone is ready for change.
>
> So to take up Joseph's so-called "process issues":
>
>> 1.  What is the demonstrated problem/threat.
> Did you not read Problem Statement No. 1? Did you not read the Montevideo statement?
>
> Control of the root zone by one government is politically unsustainable and could generate a fragmented DNS. Note also that key functions are now solely in the hands of the world's biggest commercial registry, ownership of which could change at a moment's notice. These are legacy institutional arrangements, holdovers from the NSF days, and they need to be updated and globalized.
>
>> 2.  How does the solution address that problem in an improved way?
> By ending unilateral US control, and replacing it with a structure that a) cleanly separates the policy making aspect from the implementation and operational aspects and b) avoids further politicizing root zone management by multi-lateralizing it
>
>> 3.  How would the stability and operational functionality of the Internet an its governance structures >enhanced?
> By separating it from policy intervention. And by putting the function in the hands of the parties most able and most incentivized to do it accurately and securely. And by distributing control of that function across ccTLDs as well as gTLDs
>
>> 4.  How would one test these proposed solutions to assure the above prior to deployment?
> Are you serious?
>
> This isn't laboratory engineering, my friend, this is the real world. One cannot conduct replicable tests in policy, institutions, society.
>
> Try this one: before we re-elect Obama, let's conduct a test of Mitt Romney to ensure that he will be a better solution to the nation's problems. We make him President for oh, two months and then.....No. Doesn't work that way, sorry. In the policy/political world you have to make decisions based on the best information you have and bear the consequences.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss