[discuss] [IANAxfer] Two accountability questions - help pls- Workshop 23 - ICANN accountability
seth.p.johnson at gmail.com
Thu Sep 4 17:25:00 UTC 2014
As I said, I'm speaking very generally. I will note that
interoperability means different things which talking about
identifiers encourages us to gloss over, but I'm not addressing
specific operations/functions here.
If you recognize the priority of rights, you can start crafting
conceptions that might approximate that, and then you'd actually be
working on the most important problem in the transition. Having
bodies performing operations or developing consensus standards or even
policies by simply transferring to the international arena without
paying the most careful attention to the loss of the free context we
have enjoyed "locally" is going to make a mess of things very rapidly.
My suggesting a coordinate organ isn't what creates that problem.
It's acknowledging the problem and taking it up practically.
I may run through your comments/questions more closely again, but just
understand what I'm trying to say: you're not going to get the same
stewardship context we've enjoyed so long unless the issue of the loss
of fundamental liberties as a context to work within is confronted.
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 1:12 PM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> On Sep 4, 2014, at 7:50 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, presuming that we're speaking very generally, not just
>> particular operations/functions, one approximation of rooting things
>> in a context of the priority of rights might be something like a
>> "House of Rights." That's where you have an organ that is coordinate
>> to the topmost regular processes, whose function is to represent local
>> governments (some of which are more free than others, of course) as
>> the source of fundamental liberties. It would not be responsible for
>> day-to-day "operations" or "policy development," but simply veto power
>> and recommendations. That is, participants in this body would
>> politick among themselves to produce majorities that would override
>> the regular process on the basis of fundamental liberties, and
>> supplement these decisions with recommendations.
> I am rather confused by this structure... Are you proposing that it
> would be superior to the present Internet registry policy development
> organizations such as the gNSO, RIRs, and IETF? I will admit that
> the first time that the IANA fails to follow properly developed policy
> (done via open, transparent, and inclusive processes), we're going to
> have just constitutional crisis of sorts, and your House of Rights
> seems to be ready-made to bring about such an event.
>> Not the same, even a proposition of enormity, but once we start facing
>> the fact that we're losing our stewardship context, this would be
>> evident as the sort of things you really have to do as a an "interim"
>> kind of framework for doing things. This is a way you could have a
>> definitive register of fundamental liberties, giving an approximation
>> of the context we want by recognizing liberties as deriving from
>> governments set up by their respective peoples, while the regular
>> conduct can be set up in a variety of perfectly typical, everyday ways
>> and proceed much as freely as our local governments do. It just
>> establishes a really strong "representative organ," limited to veto
>> power and recommendations.
> What rights are you asserting to these registries of Internet identifiers,
> and on what are they based on? These registries are created via the efforts
> of the IETF in specification of protocols which have certain parameters,
> and these parameters must have values. These tables of values are called
> "registries", and more than 1000 of them are maintained by the IANA without
> any of your framework above. A small handful of them (DNS names, IP addresses)
> are assigned to real-world entities such as businesses, individuals, and
> governments, with corresponding real-world interest in how they are managed.
> The IETF doesn't worry about these very much (aside from the hard technical
> requirements for their maintenance) and leaves the affected community to
> manage them via open and transparent policy development processes. Please
> explain where "fundamental liberties" are involved in this model?
>> I would hold that you're not really seriously dealing with the
>> international arena's implications unless you see that this sort of
>> conception is what's really needed.
> That may be the case, but that first presumes that my lack of perceived
> need is subsequent to first understanding what is being proposed, and at
> present I'm still having some real challenges understanding your proposal.
> Disclaimer: my views alone.
More information about the discuss