[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Who is in charge? (was Re: Why the thin data is necessary)]

[Paul Keating]

You mean like this??

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image1.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 60336 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170607/702a4aa7/image1-0001.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------


Sent from my iPad

> On 7 Jun 2017, at 17:54, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:55:19AM -0400, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> These are excellent questions.  I would add an additional one:  why are
>> private cybercrime investigators not accredited?  How can the global public
>> trust them, or perhaps why?
> 
> The above question implies a deep misunderstanding of the nature of
> the Internet.
> 
> As Phill Hallam-Baker[1] said once, "On the Internet, you are so not
> in charge for every value of 'you'."  The reason that Internet private
> cybercrime investigators are not accredited is the same reason that
> Internet policy people are not accredited, Internet technical
> contributors are not accredited, Internet e-commerce site operators
> are not accredited, and Internet private fans of dressing up as furry
> creatures are not accredited.  In a network of networks, there is no
> centre of control because there is _no centre_.  Since there is no
> centre of control on the Internet, accreditation in the generic
> sense above is completely meaningless.
> 
> The way things on the Internet work is _voluntary_ interconnection,
> which means that you're a "private cybercrime investigator" if people
> who have real legal authority in real legal jurisdictions decide to
> rely on and work with your investigations.  You're an ISP if people
> decide to use your service provisioning to connect to the Internet.
> And so on.
> 
> The idea that there is anyone in a position to accredit someone else
> for a generic Internet job completely misses the way the Internet
> actually functions.  ICANN today can accredit registrars and
> registries (and therefore make policies about RDS) because people
> agree to let ICANN do this, because it's doing it now and it's hard to
> change that.  But if ICANN proves to be too useless for the rest of
> the Internet (because, to take an imaginary case, the community around
> ICANN thinks it is Boss of da Internetz and so can make rules that
> break operational reality without any apparent operational benefit),
> then its role in IANA registries will simply be usurped by others, and
> people will ignore the ICANN registrars and registries and everything
> like that.  I certainly hope we never get there, because it would be
> really painful and bad for the Internet.  But it is certainly
> possible.  ICANN has no power independent of the agreement of everyone
> to use the ICANN policies for the IANA DNS root.  Ask MySpace or the
> authors of Gopher whether there are any permanent favourites on the
> Internet.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
> 
> [1] of all people
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg