[CCWG-ACCT] Reflections on human rights protection and promotion by ICANN

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

Andrew,

As you are available, would you care to explain to the common reader 
what expiry of a zone means in a secondary authoritative name server? 
Either ICANN was proposing to violate the documented mechanism for 
ensuring zone data is expired, and refreshed, and so engaging in 
something other than a narrow, administrative-technical function, or 
ICANN was not proposing to violate that rather well understood process.

But I take your point that in your opinion, there is no "right" to 
continuous correct resolution which government, or any other actor, may 
not arbitrarily alter.

You might also want to argue that the former CEO and Chair were in error 
when asserting that the one remaining instance of the .eg zone would be 
preserved, or as an alternative, that since the withdrawn prefixes were 
re-announced before expiry occurred, that this was a non-event, 
regardless of the utterances of the CEO and Chair at the time.

You may want to re-evaluate whether your personal experience is 
sufficient to offer a cogent response to every question.

Eric

On 11/5/15 9:17 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 08:53:37AM -0800, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>> In effect, the Corporation guaranteed the continuous existence of zone data
>> and correctness of resolution, independent of the express intent of the
>> (then) Government of Egypt, because ...
>>
>> And there is where we have the possibility of writing in the human rights
>> rational for keeping the .eg data from expiry.
> But there is a simpler rationale that can be easily founded in the
> practical responsibility of ICANN, which is to make the root zone work
> and keep the resolution of names on the Internet continuous as far as
> practically possible.  This is a narrow, administrative-technical
> function that I think keeps ICANN away from political activities that
> are perhaps better resolved by politicians.
>
> In my experience, it is easier to make an argument from practical
> grounds -- especially when talking about an operational problem --
> than from principles.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>