<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Parminder suggests a structure to take over the unilateral USG role in root zone management (among other things).<BR>
<BR>
I have a different proposal altogether – just strike it. The oversight function is completely unnecessary, and there enough checks and balances in current procedures to not need such a role.<BR>
<BR>
Just get rid of it. Make a decision that it is in the best interests of the internet not to have the perception of unilateral control of any functions. <BR>
<BR>
If the USG insists on maintaining a role, sign a similarly worded agreement with GAC. <BR>
<BR>
If nothing is done, the default solutions governments will come up with are likely to be far worse.<BR>
<BR>
Which is why we should act. I get frustrated by those organisations and individuals who are in a position to take a lead on such matters but instead do nothing. A pro-active stance is needed!<BR>
<BR>
This is just part of the DNS, as Louis Pouzin points out. The current appropriate forum for governance in DNS matters is ICANN. Improvement of ICANN is another matter, but we do not need another body- or another function or an anachronistic agreement or set of agreements - to get in the way of sensible internet governance. <BR>
<BR>
The Internet has grown up, some old procedures are now not only unneccessary but unhealthy. For the health of the Internet, we should get rid of them. <BR>
<BR>
Ian Peter<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="3" WIDTH="95%"><B>From: </B>parminder <<a href="parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>><BR>
<B>Reply-To: </B><<a href="governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>>, parminder <<a href="parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>><BR>
<B>Date: </B>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:25:12 +0530<BR>
<B>To: </B><<a href="governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>>, David Conrad <<a href="drc@virtualized.org">drc@virtualized.org</a>><BR>
<B>Subject: </B>Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ?<BR>
<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#333333"><BR>
On Monday 25 June 2012 02:16 AM, David Conrad wrote: <BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"> <BR>
Parminder,<BR>
<BR>
On Jun 21, 2012, at 6:36 PM, parminder wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"> <BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"> <BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"> <BR>
But even if we were to agree to what you argue, why would the same safe-guards not operate in case of a international oversight mechanism? <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"> <BR>
They probably would, but hard to say for certain without a concrete example of said "international oversight mechanism". Can you point me at one?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"> <BR>
I have proposed some outlines of such a possible model and I you want I can re state it.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"> <BR>
<BR>
I was actually looking for a concrete (ideally peer-reviewed) proposal or, more preferably, an operational example or prototype, not an outline of lofty goals or possible models. Does such exist?<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"><BR>
In socio-political arena, the method of seeking 'solutions' or the 'way forward' normally is that we first try to agree on larger ideas and principles, and then progressively move towards the details. Those approaching this debate from the technical side must respect this general method as they want their method of deciding on technical issues respected. The main broad points of the model that I had proposed are<BR>
<BR>
(1) An international treaty clearly lays out the scope, procedures and limits of an international CIR oversight body, as it provides it with the required authority<BR>
<BR>
(2) ICANN itself becomes an international technical body under the same statute as above, and it enters into a host country agreement with the hosting country, which could be the US<BR>
<BR>
(3) The same treaty sanctifies the broad principles of the current distributed CIR and tech standards development model (ICANN, RIRs, IETF etc)<BR>
<BR>
(4) The oversight body is a stand-alone body set up under the mentioned treaty - outside the UN system but perhaps with some loose coupling with it, in a manner that it is not subject to typical UN rules. It would ab initio evolve its own rules, procedures etc. <BR>
<BR>
(5) The oversight body can have 15-20 members, with equitable regional representation. Within each region the country from which members would come will get rotated. ( Here, we will need some degree of innovation to ensure that although the member will have some clear relationship/ backing of the government, her selection/ affirmation would require a broader national process. Some linkages with highest level national technical institutions can also be explored. More ideas are welcome here.)<BR>
<BR>
(6) The role of the oversight body will be minimal, clearly constrained by the relevant international law, exercised through clearly detailed procedures, and based on a sufficiently high majority, if not consensus. <BR>
<BR>
(7) Its decision will be subject to a separate judicial process (can look at a possible role for the International court of justice)<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"> <BR>
I'll admit I'm still not clear what you believe the "international oversight mechanism" should do.<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"><BR>
More or less what the US gov does in relation to CIR management. <BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"> <BR>
You've been talking about how the evil USG will trample the contents of the root zone. Presumably, the "international oversight mechanism" will be overseeing the operations of root zone modification as the USG does today. <BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"><BR>
yes<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"> <BR>
Since those operations must be based in some country, it isn't clear to me how the "international oversight mechanism" would be able to stop that country's government from going rogue and doing what you believe the evil USG will do.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"><BR>
No, it doesnt happen that way at all. Host country agreement and the authorising international law are there precisely to prevent such a thing. Today, if the US 'interferes' with root zone operation, it breaks no law, neither domestic nor international. To forcibly break into an international body's premises which is protected by host country agreement and based on international treaty, and interfering in its work, will be an extraordinary defiance of international law, the kind which even the US doesnt do :). It can be subject to further international processes like those from the UN and the international court of justice. BTW, the fact that the US is one of the countries with the uneasiest of relationships with the international court of justice may be a good reason to seek ICANN's and the oversight body's hosting outside the US. However, perhaps for, historical continuity's sake US would do as well. <BR>
<BR>
regards, parminder <BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"> <BR>
<BR>
Regards,<BR>
-drc<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"><BR>
<HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="3" WIDTH="95%"></FONT></SPAN></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Consolas, Courier New, Courier"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10pt'>____________________________________________________________<BR>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
<a href="governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><BR>
To be removed from the list, visit:<BR>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><BR>
<BR>
For all other list information and functions, see:<BR>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><BR>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<BR>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><BR>
<BR>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>