<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 27 February 2016 08:17 PM,
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56D1B708.8080509@gih.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Dear Parminder,<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27/02/2016 11:45, parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56D17E49.2080806@itforchange.net"
type="cite"><font face="Verdana">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.</font></blockquote>
<br>
In theory, yes, all of what you are saying is possible, except one
thing: has the "US state" ever interfered with the ICANN/root file
business, as you put it? You are speaking of a risk that has been
shown to not exist. I am much less confident of the ability of
some other states to keep their hands off interference with the
root...<br>
Kindest regards,<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Oliver<br>
<br>
I will first request a response to the following question after
which I give a further reply. Were all scenarios considered during
the oversight transition process in developing various kinds of
checks and balances consist of actual things that have happened in
the past?<br>
<br>
(What I saw was that in most cases abuses of the kind that have
never actually happened were long and thoroughly discussed and
checks developed against their potentially happening in the future.
Am I wrong in saying this? If not, why is only the possible
interference by the US state with ICANN/ root is a potential abuse
on which you want to be unconcerned or callous? Incidentally, most
of the world does not share the benign conception you seem to have
about the US state, and its frequent exercise of illegitimate power
globally. )<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56D1B708.8080509@gih.com" type="cite"> <br>
Olivier<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>