[At-Large] CCWG Briefings - Presentation

[parminder]

On Sunday 06 March 2016 03:08 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
>
> On 03/05/2016 03:48 AM, parminder wrote:
>
>> I think I have not been able to make my proposal clear...   I do think
>> that incorporation of ICANN (the same ICANN as it is) under
>> international law is the best final solution, and internationalisation
>> is not what you and others make it out to be. However, my current
>> proposal was *not about internationalisation*, it is much simpler. (It
>> is also *not really about an alternative root* - not like we know of
>> alternative roots, this will still be *the ICANN root*,
>
> I'm more than mildly confused.  (A fairly normal state of affairs for
> me. ;-)
 
Well, I have tried my best, and think I have a good enough average IQ,
but it seems not to suffice... If you keep saying that you are confused,
I would simply at one point leave this discussion, and this list can
then stay to what ever language and code it likes to use among its
accepted non-confusing members...

In fact, it should be I who should be confused... I now read my email
that you respond to.. I clearly say, lets not discuss
internationalisation, that is *not what I am proposing now*. In my
previois email as well I put this fact under emphasis..But still half of
your email below is asking me question about 'my internationalisation'
proposal !!??? So, who do you think is confusing the other :)

Then, I laid down clearly what I am actually proposing, and so that
there is no confusing, gave serial numbers to the elements of that
proposal... Now, it is possible that my proposal has lacunae or is even
completely inappropriate, but below I see not any response to it at
all... to refresh your memory, the proposal was about - a backup
redundant root in another jurisdiction, an ICANN bylaw that in case of a
US state's interference, after giving due caution, ICANN will announce
the backup as authoritative A-root, and request other root servers to
follow it (and enter into formal or informal prior agreement with them
reg it)...........

>
> I am not aware of any way that a group of j-random people can create a
> corporation that is under "international law".  Could you be more
> specific?
>
> (In addition, could you educate me on what mechanisms would exist to
> hold such an entity to operate within its given bounds and to follow
> the mandated procedures?)
>
> As I mentioned previously, I have concerns that the path you are
> suggesting would take years of international negotiations and would
> more than likely result in something with an "ugly quotiant" on par
> with the TPP.  ;-)

I am ready to answer all your questions above (and I will), but as I
said, I dont want to discuss ICANN's incorporation under international
law here but a rather different proposal..

>
> Also, I am not clear what you mean by "the root".  ICANN produces a
> chunk of structured text called a "zone file".  A zone file is nothing
> but some text.  Here's the current one:
> http://www.internic.net/domain/root.zone (about 1.3megabytes).

By the root I mean the authoritative A-root
>
> That goes via NTIA to Verisign.  At that point the contents of that
> file are not yet part of a domain name system.
>
> Rather, that file has to be be voluntarily picked up by the various
> root server operators and voluntarily incorporated into the servers
> they operate.  Those root server operators are not obligated to pick
> up that zone file, not are they prevented from making changes if they
> do so.  It is merely their good will that keeps them doing what they
> have been doing.

Sorry, but I know all this stuff... and I did in fact mention all this
in my emails in this thread.
>
> (BTW, we posit 13 root server clusters.  But that limit of 13 could be
> disturbed if the names are altered from the current things that all
> end in .servers.net because of the side effects of a thing called
> "name compression" used to construct DNS packets.)

I know. And this technical possibility should be employed by ICANN in
devising its escape route from US's illegitimate interferences. Details
separately.
>
> BTW, again, the .africa thing you mentioned in your subsequent email
> strikes me not as an aspect of US hegemony or interference but just
> the normal kind of thing when there are disputes whether an
> organization is playing by its own rules.  And the court order is
> merely to temporarily refrain from doing something until more facts
> can be ascertained. That's a fairly light handed kind of "interference".

Karl, the point here is the very exercise of jurisdictional power, that
fact itself is important and all that matters. Now it does not matter if
the court defends ICANN's conduct.. Can that then be called as non- or
light interference??? No, it is interferences all the same, by one state
into an area of governance that implicated the whole global and is
*simply unacceptable*.If in one case it can make light or 'positive' as
in reaffirming interference, by the very logic of it, it another case it
can strike down ICANN's actions, and force it to change course.

You as a US citizen may find it light,  I do not. Karl, do sometime just
conduct a thought experiment, if the Indian state was deciding important
issues that concern the global Internet what would be your (1) gut
reaction, (2) considered reaction. And try to be honest with yourself
and us in your response :)

parminder



>
>         --karl--
>