[At-Large] CCWG Briefings - Presentation

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Sat Feb 27 15:09:40 UTC 2016

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 27 Feb 2016 3:37 p.m., "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Seun
> 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
SO: Sure but that is only applicable in relation to hierarchy of how the
records gets distributed. In the long run, the 13 root zones contains
similar records.

This is even more so when we are talking about creating a fully ready
redundant system for immediate take over.
SO: And I am asking what a fully ready redundant mean in practice. My
understanding is that you are referring to the single authoritative (among
the 13) being redundant? and I was saying that it would make no big
advantage in that service providers can decide to work with just one root
instance and make it the authoritative source (if it comes to that)

> 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.
SO: At the moment NTIA has NO access to unilaterally update the root except
that it confirms that the update request from ICANN is consistent with
process (that's the administrative role that will be out post-transition).
So when you say possible USA abuse, I am wondering where that comes in.
However, I note that a judicial system could for instance pass a verdict
that certain TLD be removed, but same can also be done in any country and
its for ICANN to determine if she wants to obey such verdict.

> 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.
SO: Personally the ICANN accountability process is not really majored on
the root maintenance check than it is on the organisation management check.
The actual record keeping is so small and has been so overshadowed with
other non-related issues that we forget the actual role of ICANN.

> parminder
> 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.
>> Regards
>> > 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
>> >>
>> >> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20160227/1de4f165/attachment.html>

More information about the At-Large mailing list