<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Hi Bill<br>
<br>
Thanks for the detailed and informative analysis. A few comments inline.<br>
</font><br>
On Saturday 09 June 2012 02:38 PM, William Drake wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:73241B6D-6542-4766-95C8-0F7374FBAD94@uzh.ch"
type="cite">Hi Parminder<br>
<div></div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Jun 8, 2012, at 6:40 PM, parminder wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium;"><span
class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">We should
give a clear call for internationalising oversight of CIR management,
whereby the oversight function is shifted from US gov to an
international body constituted under an international treaty limited to
addressing the question of CIR oversight.</span></span></blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>I don't think it'd be possible to get consensus in the caucus on
that, as evidenced by the fact that you've been saying this for years
without getting a bite. But that's not the end of the story.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">What I was proposing now has
two important new elements (1) oversight is treated in its narrow
sense, and separated from from any framework that may seek to address
larger global public policy issues (2) any treaty that establishes the
internationalised status of ICANN at the same time recognises and
formally legitimises the current ICANN/IETF/RIR model which thus blocks
efforts at any significant encroachments on this model, something which
we keep fearing, and quite justifiably so. </font><br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:73241B6D-6542-4766-95C8-0F7374FBAD94@uzh.ch"
type="cite"><br>
<div>To the best of my recollection, the caucus has on a number of
occasions going back to WSIS called for internationalizing oversight,
so that's nothing new.</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
Any operational model that got suggested? Other than goodwill
declarations by the US, which are not enough. I read the model offered
by Carlos Afonso and find it quite interesting and something that can
be worked on.</font><br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:73241B6D-6542-4766-95C8-0F7374FBAD94@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> We also encouraged, in PrepCom 3 September 2005, the USG to
make a unilateral declaration that it would not attempt to monkey with
the root zone file, e.g. in cases where the US is in conflict with some
country. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Useful but hardly enough.
Other countries, and yes, it includes its people, want legal
guarantees, not goodwill declarations. As you can see US with its
insistence on kind of directly taking change of the security function
around the root is increasing rather than decreasing its control. In
the circumstances, it is rather hypocritical to expect other countries
to reduce their corresponding concerns vis a vis the root. <br>
</font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:73241B6D-6542-4766-95C8-0F7374FBAD94@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> As you might imagine, that would have been a difficult stance
for the representatives to run up the food chain in the Bush
administration. It would be interesting to explore whether such a
declaration could be feasible if there's a second Obama administration,
e.g. in the context of an expanded Affirmation of Commitments with buy
in beyond the governments and other actors actively participating in
ICANN.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
As I said in an earlier email, I dont quite well 'understand'(not that
I dont know of) Affirmation of Commitments. A genuine agreements should
have reciprocal commitments and signature of all the involved parties.
Unilateral commitments, and that is what the AoC model is, is not
sufficient. I find it as a kind of new term, and a new politico-legal
fiction, that is based on recognising trusteeship by one or two parties
for the rest of the world. I dont find such arrangements democratic,
and also unacceptable on various other counts. BTW, when you mention
'buy-in' of other governments and other actors, what does such a 'buy
in' mean? Just accepting and becoming a part of a carefully designed
arrangement of, by and for the US?<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:73241B6D-6542-4766-95C8-0F7374FBAD94@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A problem arose back in WSIS as to the meaning of
internationalization (or as many said, globalization, as the former can
be read as between governments). And it's still here today. There's a
chunk of the caucus that sees the preferred globalization as a truly
independent ICANN, perhaps vested with IANA function,</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
By all evidence the US has been tightening rather than loosening its
hold over the IANA function, and that you know is the real issue that
bothers non US actors. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:73241B6D-6542-4766-95C8-0F7374FBAD94@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> perhaps with a host country agreement---if I'm not mistaken one
ICANN strategy review on this highlighted Switzerland and Belgium as
the most viable locations. Personally, I think this would be
politically easier to push through the rest if the atoms stayed in the
US, but whatever.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I also think, as per points Milton and David have made, that any
transition would have to evolutionary,</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I see no real evolution towards internationalisation, but rather
evidence of greater centralisation, on the crucial IANA function, and
also with increased securitisation of the Internet. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:73241B6D-6542-4766-95C8-0F7374FBAD94@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> with a campaign of effective persuasion yielding serious buy in
from a US administration that'd have to be willing to go to the
Congress and all the heavy duty government agencies, private sector
groups, and noncommercial actors who'd be skittish about change and
make the case for why this should be done. It would be a battle, and
political capital would have to be expended. The administration would
be vilified on the political right and have to tough it out. And of
course, if Obama loses, this becomes an even more distant possibility. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This practical question of why a 'bad actor' would do what we want it
to do is rather more general.... why would a china or russia change
their international positions that serve the existing regimes, why
would ITU not want more power.... Beyond a point this doesnt effect
our, as in CS's, ethical positions, and the directions in which it
seeks change. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:73241B6D-6542-4766-95C8-0F7374FBAD94@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The model you propose is obviously starkly different. Rather
than making ICANN fully independent and responsible to the global
community through a revamped and expanded AoC, you want a UN
negotiation that would yield an oversight treaty (among governments,
presumably with full SG input but not equality) in which ICANN
accountability would not be via an AoC but rather to some new body that
in all likelihood would be populated by government reps not actively
involved in ICANN affairs, </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
We can ensure that this is not so, in a manner perhaps similar to how
global techical standards bodies dont get populated by gov reps, but by
appropriately informed people..... and as i said, we can keep an
appropriate model of national/ regional selections that does involve a
larger local constituency then just an ad hoc gov appointment.... we
can put general directions that i am sure most countries will largely
observe. This does strain the westphalian model but that is the idea. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:73241B6D-6542-4766-95C8-0F7374FBAD94@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div>and with SGs in some sort of undefined role (I remain
unconvinced any treaty-based system is going to treat SGs as peers with
equal input, which is problematic to many). </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I am always happy to hear what kind of 'equal treatment' model do you
really want. And what model of stakeholder rep selection, the two
issues being related. (and whether such a model for just oversight
function also extends to general Carlos suggested one for the
international level, and also CGI.Br is a model to look at. So, do we
have a model to propose. Lets not think of whether govs will agree or
not. Lets place the model on the table and say this is what we are
ready to go with. It is important to put forward the oversight model
that is ethical and our best option to be relevant to the global
discussions. Discussions and negotiations start from there. Not to do
so is to legitimise the status quo. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:73241B6D-6542-4766-95C8-0F7374FBAD94@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> And this implies not an evolutionary process where actors in
the US come to a new understanding that the USG link can be severed
without risking anything to security stability etc,</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
There is limit to which the international community can be asked to
closely follow and cater to understanding and preference of various
actors in the US. No, civil society needs to speak against such an
arrangement. Lets have the guts to say that. I prefer to follow
political systems that I have participation in. Will we offer a similar
analysis of why things are as they are in China - after all there too
there are a variety of interests, and also some very legitimate ones...
and there too people speak of evolutionary changes..... do we have
sympathy with such positions, or do we say, no, this is wrong and wont
work, and we are against it. We need to speak up in the same manner
about what is wrong with US's stance. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:73241B6D-6542-4766-95C8-0F7374FBAD94@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> but rather a sort of confrontational NEIO-style negotiation in
which the international community rises up en masse and tells the US it
must let go, now. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
same analysis can be made about China's and Russia's international
stances.. why dont we get more 'understanding'. Why dont we get a
little less 'confrontational' about there stances, and well, also about
ITU.... why such differential treatment.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:73241B6D-6542-4766-95C8-0F7374FBAD94@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div>I don't see that working a) within the US, where everyone's back
would get up a la WCIT, or b) in the international coalitions that
would have to shape said treaty, because there's no evidence that
the international community is en masse as unhappy as you are. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Many many more are very unhappy then you seem to realise. Most of the
global IG civil society space has been somewhat curiously constructed
within structural forms and constraints that seem to blind it to this
very wide spread unhappiness. <br>
<br>
(more comments below)<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:73241B6D-6542-4766-95C8-0F7374FBAD94@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div>David gave away the dirty little secret the other day,</div>
snip</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:73241B6D-6542-4766-95C8-0F7374FBAD94@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div>I suspect many of us have had such conversations. So I'm very
hard pressed to see OECD governments backing such a move, </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
On the contrary, I think non US OECD governments will immediately agree
to an international oversight board/ body, of course with all the due
safeguards which I have been talking about. . <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:73241B6D-6542-4766-95C8-0F7374FBAD94@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div>and the same may true for many developing and transitional
countries who either are reasonably satisfied that stuff works,</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, none is satisfied. Almost all countires given the option between
the present system and an international oversight body, with due
safeguards, will immediately go for the latter. I have not the
slightest doubt about this.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:73241B6D-6542-4766-95C8-0F7374FBAD94@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> are tied into complex supportive relations with the US, or just
don't care all the much either way, etc. I just don't see the scenario
in which you get a clear and remotely consensual mandate though a
cosmic UN battle in which governments' preferences follow a highly
variable geometry and most well organized SGs would be opposed.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
If we look strictly and only at narrow oversight issue, agreement will
be possible. That way no international agreement is easy. Do you think
climate change negotiations are easy; but doesnt stop people to seek
them, no. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:73241B6D-6542-4766-95C8-0F7374FBAD94@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But the two paths need not be mutually exclusive. It's not
inconceivable that over some years we move on the first approach and
see if it works. It it manifestly fails to meet global public interest
criteria and satisfy enough governments and SGs, the question of
establishing a separate UN thing to fix something that is indeed broken
could then get a much more serious hearing.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Neither do I see any reform happening, nor is the present arrangement
acceptable at the level of democratic principle (and that is not
changing). For countries worried about security aspects (as US itself
is) what is sought to be prepared for is the 'worst case scenario'. (as
we all do for our security, we dont make arrangements for security of
our house based just on the empirical premise that no one may have ever
earlier burgled our house).<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:73241B6D-6542-4766-95C8-0F7374FBAD94@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So my suggestion is to recognize that big changes in the
architecture of global governance cannot be arrived at quickly and
through confrontation, and that we should be in it for the long haul. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Even putting just and fair models on the table now is still a long haul
struggle. Waiting may look like a stratus quoist position.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:73241B6D-6542-4766-95C8-0F7374FBAD94@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div> It's be a lot easier to push for revolution once reform has not
worked, if indeed it does not.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And we should keep things in proportion and bear in mind that
99% of the actors relying on the Internet and caring how these things
are done are probably unaware of the IGC. Even if we could reach
consensus on that there should be rapid movement toward a new grand
design, the response elsewhere could be, "IGC who?" I don't think
we're in a position to unilaterally change the world along lines that
lines that would be contentious, but we could weigh in and add weight
to calls elsewhere to get started on a more evolutionary path.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well, a civil society body's legitimacy and often even recognition
comes with moral and political justification of its positions and its
willingness and ability to work for it. This is a choice that IGC has
to make. And if it does make the right choice, perhaps there will be
less 'IGC who' questions. We are one of the premier civil society
organisation must present the most moral and just models (this is done
in other global gov spheres, it is only here that we have such an
extra-ordinary comfort with the status quo), while also the relatively
pragmatic immediate approaches towards it. That is our task, and if we
are not doing that, we are not doing much of anything.. We are making
ourselves even more irrelevant then we may at present be. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:73241B6D-6542-4766-95C8-0F7374FBAD94@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm sure we don't agree, but that's how I see it anyway…</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>