[At-Large] CCWG Briefings - Presentation
brainstreetceo at gmail.com
Sat Feb 27 14:49:58 UTC 2016
I am just curious as to the 'Non US location' where there is no risk of
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 10:42 AM parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> 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:
> 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.
> 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> 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.
> > 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
> >> 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
> >> 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
> > 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
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large