[governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN

[John Curran]

On Jul 5, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> There is a structural tension between the growing need for global governance of CIRs and the regional/territorial nature of the RIRs, just as there is a tension between Internet governance and territorial nation-states. The ICANN board, with a few exceptions such as Narten and Plzak, are almost completely ignorant of numbering issues, and the ICANN staff is trying very hard to avoid them as much as possible, partly out of deference to the RIRs, partly out of a feeling that they have too many other things to do. But this is not a viable situation long term; many of the issues regarding addresses - and not just the ones you mention - will have to be resolved globally. Either the RIRs will expand and improve their global policy making capabilities, or ICANN will have to step up, or if either of those options fails the ball will - as a matter of fact, not preference - fall into the US government's court. 

Milton - 
 
  Any and all suggestions on how the RIRs (ARIN in particular) should 
  "improve their global policy making capabilities" are welcome.  Feel 
  free to contact me directly, or more formally through ARIN's suggestion 
  process at <https://www.arin.net/app/suggestion/>

> Just as Whois for DNS became a major, global issue because the trademark interests wanted it to be one, so Whois for IPv6 will become a global issue if and when a powerful interest group decides it is. Curran's pretense that this is a local matter pertaining to the US LEAs only is either a dishonest smokescreen or (what is more likely) yet another indication of how woefully out of touch with global governance politics some people in the tech community are. The US FBI has - as everyone knows - led global policy efforts to deal with Whois, registrar accreditation agreement, and copyright issues. If they are making noise about IPv6 and Whois you can bloody well bet it is a global policy issue and you are absolutely right that civil society needs to be thinking about how it can participate in a legitimate open policy dialogue and not allow the discussion to be dominated by one side (LEA or business or government, whatever). 

  I did not refer to it as a "local matter pertaining to the US LEAs only",
  and would appreciate you either accurately summarize my remarks, or even
  better, quote me directly rather than mischaracterizing my remarks for
  your latest cause célèbre.

  To be clear, I asked "Can you elaborate how US LEA expressing concerns on 
  their ability to perform their job when IPv6 is deployed (due to potentially 
  less number registry updates) somehow is an ICANN Internet governance matter?  
  Are not the Regional Internet Registries to accept such input in their forums 
  and allow discussion of the concerns?"

  The point of the question was to note that policy discussions take place at
  a regional level and that law enforcement had a right of participation just 
  as all others  I very much believe that civil society needs to be thinking 
  about matters such as accuracy of the public Whois, and should be actively 
  involved in the policy discussion.  As these discussions are taking place 
  in regional forums, it would be likely be most effective to participate 
  there alongside LEA, business and government in such discussions.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t