<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/27/16 2:45 AM, parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56D17E49.2080806@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<font face="Verdana">I disagree with Karl that California remains
the best jurisdictional bet...<br>
</font></blockquote>
That's sensible. I'm often wrong. ;-)<br>
<br>
My point was less to advocate California than to reflect that there
will be no jurisdiction that will be perfect bliss and beauty. And
that jumping from one frying pan to another will not really solve
problems as much as merely shift them into new forms while, at the
same time, causing a whole lot of effort, trouble, and risk as the
jump is made.<br>
<br>
I understand the concern about US hegemony.<br>
<br>
But take heart, even those of us in the US feel locked out.<br>
<br>
I am a person who is pretty close to the topmost point of that
hegemony - I'm a California techie (been part of what would become
the internet since about 1968), am a California attorney, have
written full internet standards, participated in the creation of
ICANN and have been a member of its board of directors.<br>
<br>
So do I have influence? No. So I can well understand that others
who are in less privileged positions than I would feel resentment
and anger.<br>
<br>
However, the road you are asking us to follow is a road that
involves the creation of what is essentially a new international
body. Where is the legitimacy of this body going to come from? I
fear that an effort to come to terms over this will result in
something as egregious as the TPP.<br>
<br>
And how are the massive assets of ICANN (contracts, money, etc)
going to be moved without the willing consent of a lot of third
parties.<br>
<br>
Moreover, your road seems to involve what has been called a
competing or alternative DNS root. I'm not afraid of competing
roots - in fact I think they are a good idea. But many people are
extremely (and not unreasonably) fearful of what could happen if the
older roots - which will continue to be used (there is a lot of
inertia) - and the new one begin to develop inconsistencies.<br>
<br>
Moreover, the root server operators are an mostly independent
operators - they have not obligation to accept what ICANN, or anyone
else, publishes as a root zone file. Nor are they under any
obligation to not alter that root zone file. They have not done so,
but that is the result of their desire to act with extreme caution
rather than legal compulsion. We owe a lot to the root server
operators. They deployed anycast servers on their on initiative
without the consent, and even despite the consent, of ICANN. Do we
really want to work against a group who has perhaps done more to
assure the stability of DNS than anyone?<br>
<br>
The point of my notes is that we should fix ICANN and do so in a way
that follows well known, and widely accepted, methods. ICANN was
intentionally designed to be distant and unaccountable - deals were
struck (and remain secret to this day) when the law firm that
created ICANN was pushing "newco" through the US Dep't of Commerce.<br>
<br>
There is a lot of room to fix the existing ICANN. We can reshape it
to have a real membership structure, with real voters rather than
artificial ones being proposed. And we can change ICANN's organic
documents - its Articles and Bylaws - to require that certain issues
receive supermajority votes on the board, to remove the President
from his ex-officio seat on the board (the damage that that has
caused over the years is significant), etc. As I mentioned
previously, take a look at what we (Boston Working Group) proposed
back in 1998 - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://cavebear.com/bwg/submission-letter.html">http://cavebear.com/bwg/submission-letter.html</a><br>
<br>
The new proposals have a lot of good ideas. I jump up and applaud
changes to the Articles/Bylaws that better channel the decision
making of the board of directors and require special procedures for
certain matters. I agree with the general notion of allowing
members to have certain powers and rights - I just find that what is
being proposed is redundant to, and inferior to, what is already
available under California law.<br>
<br>
--karl--<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>