<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<br>
On Friday 08 June 2012 08:52 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">
<!--
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
-->
P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;">
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;">Parminder,<br>
<br>
As more of a political than technical guy...at least hard-core Internet
techies would say so : ) - again permit me to play
interpreter/historian; which also has implications for Norbert's recent
suggestions:<br>
<br>
David said:<br>
<br>
<div>- a viable alternative has not been identified;<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
I think civil society should identify it. Civil society is by
definition the non institutional space... All those alredy too thickly
involved with IG institutions - and I include ICANN and ISOC here, and
of course ITU too, are unlikely to do so. </font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;">
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;">
<div><br>
My comment: Exactly<br>
<br>
David said:<br>
</div>
<div>- historical experiences by the Internet technical community
with one such international body (the ITU) were less than positive and
have soured folks in that community on all international bodies.<br>
<br>
snip<br>
<br>
Still, I'm sure many in the 'Internet technical community' remember
having to literally and not figuratively fight off UN (ITU) efforts not
to regulate the net, but to kill it.
<br>
<br>
Yeah it is all good to say we should let bygones be bygones, but.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
As proposed by me in the earlier email, lets insist that ICANN/ IETF
models be officially sanctified by the same agreement that
internationalises oversight. That would, to a good extent, take care of
this issue isnt it. That is best way to resist undue demands and
efforts of ITU, isnt it.</font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;">
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;">
<div><br>
Anyway, point remains, the nuances we are addressing here are all
super-important and we/you need to think precisely about what you/we
are aiming/asking for.
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">I have said it, others may
comment, propose alternatives, whatever... but we need to move from
where we are.....</font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;">
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;">
<div><br>
Norbert's suggestions are a good starting point for further discussion,
in a 'put your (engineering) money where your claimed priorities are'
way. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
Internationalising oversight is very important imperative for many/
most countries, and I have no doubt that they will put in all the money
that is needed. No doubt at all. Lets leave this argument out. <br>
</font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;">
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;">
<div>IF noone is putting up alternatives to the present, then the
present continues to the future. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Exactly. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;">
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;">
<div>You may or may not share McTim's view that change cannot be
made/implemented, </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, I dont, Never had sympathy for such fatalistic views. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;">
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;">
<div>but if no demonstrably viable alternative exists, then we remain
where we are.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I dont know what demonstration means.... I cant demonstrate oversight
models without they being actually accepted and implemented. But
logically and conceptually, yes... that is what I am trying. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;">
<div
style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;">
<div><br>
Lee<br>
<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div
style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF144056" style="direction: ltr;"><font size="2"
color="#000000" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] on behalf of David Conrad
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:drc@virtualized.org">drc@virtualized.org</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 07, 2012 8:51 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] "Oversight"<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div>Parminder,
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Jun 7, 2012, at 10:00 AM, parminder wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff"><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">I
take form the discussion that you and many of the so called tech
community are convinced that US government cannot do anything bad to
the Internet's architecture vis a vis what has been called the CIRs and
the associated phenomenon. </font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>To clarify, a think a more accurate view of my position would be
that, like with MAD nuclear doctrine, it is entirely possible for the
USG to do something bad, however the potential repercussions are more
than sufficient to discourage such actions.</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff"><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">If
so, why would you and others be against giving a UN body exactly the
same role as the US gov has at present, as long as the relevant
guarantees that the distributed system will be maintained as present
vide an international agreement, which inter alia cannot be changed
without US and its allies agreeing to any change.
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Why would you think I'm against such a role? While I was at
APNIC back in mid-90s, I actually argued against the US unilaterally
asserting it had the ability and prerogative to establish Internet
governance policies via the white/green papers. Unfortunately, the
governments of the AP region at the time couldn't be bothered to even
discuss potential alternatives (after all, the world was moving to the
OSI protocol suite and this TCP/IP stuff was just going to fade away).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>However, being new to this discussion and largely ignorant of
the relevant international bodies, I'm unaware of actual potential
alternatives (well, other than the ITU). Which UN body are you
proposing?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff"><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">In
other words, why does an arrangement looks so innocent when when in the
hands of the US government, and the same arrangement when shifted to an
international body backed by inviolable international law becomes the
resounding shrill cry of 'UN control of the Internet'. Can you help me
understand this apparent paradox.<br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>While this is outside my bailiwick (I tend to be viewed as a
technical person rather than a political one), a couple of potential
explanations I can think of:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- a viable alternative has not been identified;</div>
<div>- an international body can be viewed, rightly or wrongly, as
being insufficiently nimble to adjust to the rapid changes inherent in
Internet technologies;</div>
<div>- an international body can be viewed, rightly or wrongly, as
having the ability to impose policies that would impact negatively
impact Internet operational efficiency; and/or</div>
<div>- historical experiences by the Internet technical community
with one such international body (the ITU) were less than positive and
have soured folks in that community on all international bodies.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>However, I'm just guessing (and note I do not necessarily agree
with any/all of the above).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff"><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">And
there can be no doubt that US law and exercise of US's executive power
is much more liable to arbitrary use and possible sudden changes than
international law and its execution. </font><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;">The fact that many US
based and pro US actors simply dont accept this simple and patently
clear fact is quite, well, bugging to most non US actors,
</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>I have to admit seeing a bit of irony here: in the past (both
while I was at APNIC and as IANA general manager), I was in numerous
private meetings with government officials in which they told me that
while publicly, they will continue to rail against the USG's "control"
of the Internet, privately, they welcome it since the know how to work
with the USG, don't trust (or perhaps more accurately, have less
ability to influence) the alternatives, and it's the devil they know.
However, that was some time ago, so perhaps the positions of those
individuals have changed.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>More pragmatically, as I'm sure you're aware, there is a
perception, particularly within at least part of the Internet technical
community, that international bodies have in the past retarded
innovation in the telecommunications sector in order to maintain the
political/economic status quo, much to the detriment of human society
as a whole. Regardless of the accuracy of this perception, I suspect
unless/until concrete guarantees can be provided that this won't happen
again, there will be resistance to change towards an international body.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>-drc</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>