Re: [NA-Discuss] Foreign Policy and the Internet
Hi John, John Levine wrote: That said, I agree with your theory about what DoC was doing. They've made it quite clear for a very long time that they're not going to use access to the root to pressure other countries. I am sure you have been around long enough to know that what people say/do today has little to do with what someone else may do later. When that someone gets a hold of authority in the future, access to root may well become leverage. It should not be necessary, but I can provide examples of this and I bet everybody can. --bob -- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
It should not be necessary, but I can provide examples of this and I bet everybody can.
Given that that US has controlled access to the root since the day the Internet started, they have always allowed countries such as Cuba, North Korea, and Iran to updated their TLD entries as desired, and the US has made it quite clear they're not giving up control of the root any time in the forseeable future, I'm having trouble imagining what a relevant example would be. ICANN's screwing around to get ccTLDs to sign MOUs with ICANN was just a side show, and as Eric noted, it's not going to happen again. R's, John
John Levine wrote: That said, I agree with your theory about what DoC was doing. They've made it quite clear for a very long time that they're not going to use access to the root to pressure other countries.
I am sure you have been around long enough to know that what people say/do today has little to do with what someone else may do later. When that someone gets a hold of authority in the future, access to root may well become leverage.
Dr. Bruen, I hope we're discussing the actions of government, and for the most part, policy oversight by career civil servants employed by the NTIA, with some policy direction by political appointees -- the Under Secretary, even the Secretary of Commerce -- with input on this specific question -- the timeliness of changes to the IANA root zone for iso3166 code points -- from career civil servants employed by the Department of State, also with some input by political appointees -- the Under Secretary, even the Secretary of State. The contract period is 36 months, of which several have already transpired. I'm unable to envision an enlightened, informed administration risking the consequences of making changes requested by governments unreasonably conditional. Eric
On 14 August 2012 16:57, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>wrote:
I'm unable to envision an *enlightened, informed* administration risking the consequences of making changes requested by governments unreasonably conditional.
Those qualifiers [emphasis mine] make all the difference IMO. So far, evidence of enlightenment and awareness is scarce, as witnessed by the congressional hearings latest December (to which the ALAC responded). What is just as possible, based on observation, is cynical manipulation of processes to keep other would-be actors at bay, both internal and external. The US DoC may not really prefer the multi-stakeholder model better than any other, but cheerleading it serves as a useful tactic to quell the aspirations of other countries who have woken up to the fact that the US is no longer the home of a plurality of the world's Internet users. It may be considered distasteful to have this debate enter into the realm of foreign policy, but I think it is unrealistic to believe that three years from now global Internet governance -- and the evaluation of ICANN's suitability to continue in its roles -- will still be considered a purely US domestic matter. And it is similarly unreasonable to expect that the ALAC, as one of the most geographically balanced stakeholder entities within ICANN, will condone -- let alone encourage -- long term continued US monopoly control of resource governance. I think the ALAC and At-Large have a role to play in helping ICANN becoming more globally accountable. The AoC was merely a first step, and even that is badly flawed in its execution. The R3 white paper, which I helped author together with former GAC, ccNSO and ICANN Board members, helps chart out the issues and suggest possible remedies. This paper has already been requested by many GAC and Board members as major internal overhauls are contemplated to address both changes within ICANN's community and external political pressures. - Evan
Hi, Well, the response to what I thought was just a side comment was surprising. Anyone who thinks that future governments or CEO's or whatever will always do the same thing as those who came before is simply not paying attention. The world has cooperated on air traffic, telephones, currency, the Olympics among other things. All of these agreements/traditions have been compromised at one time or another, like when the US athletes were not allowed to participate in the Olympics as a protest for Russian military activity. Leaders do not always do what is smart or right, even if they are trying to. ICANN's relationship with the world is evolving and will continue to do so. The environment we all live in is changing as well, and no one group has control. Therefore predicting that the status quo will remain the same silly at best. Recall Yogi Berra, "Predicting is hard, especially about the future." --bob On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 14 August 2012 16:57, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>wrote:
I'm unable to envision an *enlightened, informed* administration risking the consequences of making changes requested by governments unreasonably conditional.
Those qualifiers [emphasis mine] make all the difference IMO.
So far, evidence of enlightenment and awareness is scarce, as witnessed by the congressional hearings latest December (to which the ALAC responded). What is just as possible, based on observation, is cynical manipulation of processes to keep other would-be actors at bay, both internal and external. The US DoC may not really prefer the multi-stakeholder model better than any other, but cheerleading it serves as a useful tactic to quell the aspirations of other countries who have woken up to the fact that the US is no longer the home of a plurality of the world's Internet users.
It may be considered distasteful to have this debate enter into the realm of foreign policy, but I think it is unrealistic to believe that three years from now global Internet governance -- and the evaluation of ICANN's suitability to continue in its roles -- will still be considered a purely US domestic matter. And it is similarly unreasonable to expect that the ALAC, as one of the most geographically balanced stakeholder entities within ICANN, will condone -- let alone encourage -- long term continued US monopoly control of resource governance.
I think the ALAC and At-Large have a role to play in helping ICANN becoming more globally accountable. The AoC was merely a first step, and even that is badly flawed in its execution. The R3 white paper, which I helped author together with former GAC, ccNSO and ICANN Board members, helps chart out the issues and suggest possible remedies. This paper has already been requested by many GAC and Board members as major internal overhauls are contemplated to address both changes within ICANN's community and external political pressures.
- Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
On 8/14/12 6:24 PM, Bob Bruen wrote:
Anyone who thinks that future governments or CEO's or whatever will always do the same thing as those who came before is simply not paying attention.
We'll simply have to agree to disagree. I think that the USG has an interest in the persistence of the single root model. I think that the high costs associated with alternatives to the current model, both to implement, and to parties with interest in the current model, deter most state actors -- from creating the material necessity for alternatives, and from embarking on programs of alternatives. Not that this should matter, it is not offered as an appeal to authority kind of reasoning, but in August and October of 2001, due to my involvement with CNNIC's attempt to get Han Script "done right" (that is, using intermediate tables to remedy the errors introduced by the "Unification of Han Script" by the Unicode Consortium), I was asked by the Academy of Sciences side of CNNIC "What should China do?" My response was that local literacy, local users, come before global standards. In November of 2001 CNNIC started the CNNIC root name server constellation, implementing Han Script TLDs some seven years before ICANN saw the necessity of moving towards that goal. Later, after the IDN WG concluded and RFCs published, the intermediate tables fix was also published as an RFC. Another example, again, not offered as an appeal to authority kind of reasoning, but when the DNSSEC zone signing algorithm issue came up it was clear to me that the Russian Federation had a material necessity in the inclusion of the GOST standard for encryption algorithms, and failure to include that would lead to an outcome similar to the exclusion of Han Script labels. I did a lot of running back and forth between Dmitry Burkov, Susan Sene and others and the necessary delta on the algorithms supported section was made. There are many things I do not in fact pay much attention to, but the persistence of the single root model is not one of them. I'm sorry we couldn't find agreement. Eric Brunner-Williams Candidate, NARALO ALAC Rep. election 2012
participants (4)
-
Bob Bruen -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Evan Leibovitch -
John R. Levine