[At-Large] CCWG Briefings - Presentation

Sat Feb 27 14:37:03 UTC 2016

Seun

Firstly, there is huge difference between the one authoritative root,
and the 13 root zone servers, and still more between these and their
anycast instances... These three kinds can simply not be spoken of in
the same breath. This is even more so when we are talking about creating
a fully ready redundant system for immediate take over.

Second, when a really effective check is being devised against possible
abuse of US state's jurisdictional power (about which strangely no
stress test ever gets done - I mean in the oversight transition proposal
development process - when the real possibilities are all around us) it
can be effective only when the whole parallel setup is fully ready and
switch-able rather quickly. The current configuration has little or no
value as the kind of check I am talking about.

Now, whether we are at all interested in devising such a check is an
entirely different matter.. How meticulous have we been in devising
various other kinds of checks during the transition proposal development
process.. Then why such callousness with regard to this vital check,
which covers an area that, we all know, has been perhaps the single
biggest concern regarding the current ICANN oversight mechanism, for
most people, groups and countries.... Frankly, I really do not
understand it.

parminder 

On Saturday 27 February 2016 07:26 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> On 27 Feb 2016 12:22 p.m., "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
> >
> > As a stop gap measure, before such incorporation under international
> law can be worked out, a new ICANN free from formal NTIA oversight
> should set up a parallel redundant authoritative root in a non US
> location, which is fully primed to work and take over from the US
> based one the moment there is any interference by the US state -
> whether its judicial, legislative or executive branch, either in
> ICANN's policy process, or actual entries in the authoritative root.
> Since Internet's root system works by reputation and 'community
> acceptance' and not by any necessary physical components and linkages,
> this should be easy to work out.. This IMHO would be the best interim
> check on the US state's possibilities to interfere with ICANN/ root
> file business.
> >
> SO: At the moment there are root server replica across the globe.
> Technically it implies that each of those root can be potential
> authoritative root (if absolutely required). So I don't think setting
> up a redundant authoritative root outside US have any significant
> advantage in that it's only authoritative if active and not when
> redundant.
>
> Regards
>
> > parminder 
> >
> > On Friday 26 February 2016 09:31 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2/26/16 12:55 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Karl makes a compelling case why ICANN should not be a California
> corporation.
> >>
> >> That was not my point at all.
> >>
> >> One can go to pretty much any country, any state, on the Earth and
> will find similar laws.
> >>
> >> There will, of course, be variations in color and texture among
> those laws.  But no matter where, when people pool their interests in
> a common enterprise there will be the same questions of control during
> times of agreement and times of disagreement.  From the 17th to the
> 20th century European ideas of organization were spread around the world.
> >>
> >> These laws have been polished through centuries of experience. 
> Those who think they have a better idea often discover that that idea
> has occurred before and was found wanting.
> >>
> >> I am old enough to have come of age during the "flower power" era
> of the 1960's.  I saw (and experienced) a lot of people and groups who
> rejected "the establishment" and sought to reshape the world along
> lines that were less confrontational,  more "personally empowered",
> more "love, peace, and good vibes".   Those attempts, like previous
> Utopian movements, faded because they were based on aspirations rather
> than recognition of hard lessons of experience with human nature.
> >>
> >> These proposals to restructure ICANN are similarly aspirational. 
> And similarly unrealistic.
> >>
> >> Perhaps most unrealistic is the idea that "we can just pick up and
> move to somewhere else".
> >>
> >> The grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence. 
> And if one takes a look around it's going to be hard to find a place
> that is more amenable than California to innovated organizational
> structures.  Which is a good reason to look at what the aging Hippies
> who now run California have put into California's
> public-benefit/non-profit corporations law with regard to membership
> and the powers of that membership.
> >>
> >> Don't fight the system.  Use it.
> >>
> >>         --karl--
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> At-Large mailing list
> >> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >>
> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > At-Large mailing list
> > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >
> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20160227/10035680/attachment-0001.html>