[At-Large] CCWG Briefings - Presentation

Sat Feb 27 15:35:51 UTC 2016

On Saturday 27 February 2016 08:19 PM, Lance Hinds wrote:
> I am just curious as to the 'Non US location' where there is no risk
> of jurisdictional interference.

Any relativity stable place will do , Geneva, Manila, Sao Paulo.... And
basically, that only serves as a check to possible US abuse, and
normally with good checks in place abuses get avoided. That is their
primary purpose, and mostly checks need not actually get activated...
And of course if indeed we have to move to Geneva, or Manila, or Sal
Paulo.... there would be corresponding further checks similarly... So
the whole system is safer and more abuse proof without us being
dependent on the hoped for benign-ness of one jurisdiction, of the US or
any else... Does this make it clearer?

parminder
> Lance
>
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 10:42 AM parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>      I mean a check against abuse of power is a check only when the
>     potential abuser can feel it breathing down its neck.... parminder
>
>     On Saturday 27 February 2016 08:07 PM, parminder wrote:
>>     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
>>>
>>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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/20160227/42bf2e9e/attachment-0001.html>