<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 05 March 2016 05:18 PM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56DAC7A3.6080203@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Karl<br>
<br>
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*, just physically elsewhere.) And so I will focus
on that in this email, and respond to issues of
internationalisation later. <br>
<br>
The following is my current proposal, which I would think is
rather easy to carry through.<br>
<br>
First of all, whatever some members of this list may think, the
issue of possible wrongful interference of the US state in ICANN
policy process and/or root file is VERY REAL in a lot of people's
and countries' mind.</blockquote>
<br>
And if a proof of such a possibility was ever needed, this is the
latest one, hot off the courts -
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.prlog.org/12539064-united-states-court-has-granted-an-interim-relief-for-dca-trust-on-africa.html">https://www.prlog.org/12539064-united-states-court-has-granted-an-interim-relief-for-dca-trust-on-africa.html</a><br>
<br>
The US courts have never hesitated to exercise US jurisdiction over
ICANN's policy processes, and also root file (see the court
proceedings on claims made for 'seizing' .ir as Iranian government's
asset in the US). It is only the so called ICANN community, which
like to enjoy the name of 'global' multistakeholder community, which
consistently refuses to look at the facts. This when it conjures the
most unlikely if not impossible of contingencies vis a vis all other
governments of the world suddenly deciding to take over ICANN.. See
the absurd lengths the stress test on 18 of ICANN accountability
process has been taken to. Imagining all kind of likelihoods -
including most unlikely ones - of how all other govs can by
consensus misbehave... <br>
<br>
But why no stress test for what US state could do, when in fact no
simulations are required when we witness US state's inappropriate
interference in ICANN so regularly - one instance actually surfacing
today itself..<br>
<br>
And a key ALAC leader Olivier responds to me by saying "....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". !!!!<br>
<br>
Can we simply continue be so blind like this. Whom are we fooling!..
Someone someday will point to the emperor's non clothes, including
those of the 'community' which seem to simply exist to legitimise
US's hegemony on the Internet's infrastructure. <br>
<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56DAC7A3.6080203@itforchange.net" type="cite">It
has often been stressed over the last decade and more (WGIG
pointed to it as one of the top 3 issues), and is also in
principle a very legitimate concern. Now, unless one thinks that
there is not an issue at all here which is at least worth seeking
a solution for, there is no point in proceeding further. But I
assume that you and most others do agree that there is a real
issue at hand, but may think that any solution may be worse than
the original problem. If so, let me propose a simple solution and
am happy to hear what is so ill about it. <br>
<br>
1. ICANN sets up a redundant parallel authoritative root zone in
another country, exactly like the original one, fully under its
control. It takes the root zone operators into confidence in this
regard and all protocols etc get shared. (Unlike what you say,
this is not a parallel root, this is the same root which, post
transition, ICANN is supposed to fully own. It is just a redundant
back up in another country of the working instance in the US. As a
backup database, including one in another country, does not become
a different database.)<br>
<br>
2. A board resolution, or preferably a by-law (even a fundamental
by-law perhaps) makes it clear that if there is any interference/
order/ injunction from any of the branches of the US state -
whether judiciary, legislative or executive, which purports to
interfere with ICANN policy process and/or its maintenance of root
zone, ICANN board, failing to get the order/ injunction vacated
(about which follows), will declare the non US back-up root as the
official operating one. This root remains under the ICANN as ever,
and therefore is not an alternative root. Only the new applicable
protocols, already shared, should be requested to be followed by
the root server operators, who I understand would like to keep the
root safe from arbitrary interference by US jurisdiction and
should therefore cooperate. <br>
<br>
3. Whenever ICANN receives such an infringing order, it will first
respond by letting the concerned authority know that such
resolution/ bylaw exists and therefore the order cannot be
followed, and if insisted upon will simply result the root
immediately physically moving out of the US. This being simply a
fact, and the relevant order will have no effect other than to
move ICANN's root - and perhaps following it, ICANN's main
registration - outside the US, which in some ways presumably hurts
US's interests, the concerned Us authority is fully expected to
withdraw any such order. So like all good checks this proposed one
would be effective by its very existence and most probably never
needed to be made operational. <br>
<br>
And this solves a key global issue, I understand, without too much
ado. Even the US should not be able to object to it, bec the
backup is only for an eventuality that US claims should never come
to pass. And so everyone is happy. <br>
<br>
I would like to hear your and others' comments on this proposal.<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 28 February 2016 11:34 AM,
Karl Auerbach wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56D28E04.2030804@cavebear.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://cavebear.com/bwg/submission-letter.html"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://cavebear.com/bwg/submission-letter.html">http://cavebear.com/bwg/submission-letter.html</a></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>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a>
At-Large Official Site: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://atlarge.icann.org">http://atlarge.icann.org</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>