<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'>Hi Parminder, comments inline<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>Date: </B>Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:14:54 +0530<BR>
<B>To: </B>Ian Peter <<a href="ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>><BR>
<B>Cc: </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>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"><FONT FACE="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial">Dear Ian<BR>
<BR>
I am willing to discuss your proposal, if we can put some flesh over it.<BR>
<BR>
So the baseline is; ICANN, both in its DNS and IANA roles, becomes an international organisation, through an express agreement among all actors, which includes US and other govs, and it gets into a host country agreement which gives it various immunities. Right?<BR>
<B><BR>
IP – yes, and the host country agreement seems to have broad support as a step for ICANN across this list<BR>
</B><BR>
<BR>
Beyond that you seem to want ICANN to self-regulate and self-oversee, without any separate oversight body. Which means that the ICANN board is the final authority for everything. <BR>
<BR>
<B>IP – Yes, subject to a body of international law and its charter. The Board is elected (mostly, perhaps it should be fully) and as such provides a good level of accountability. If there were to be an oversight, I think it should be something like a High Court or Federal Court that determines the lawfulness of ICANN actions when and if required – certainly not another elected body or governmental body.<BR>
</B><BR>
Dont you think that having a body that can check possible abuse of power by the ICANN board, and hold it accountable to some basic parametres and general law/policies, would be useful/ necessary? Do you think that such institutional separation of roles and power can be done within ICANN? If so, how do you suggest to go about it? <BR>
<BR>
<B>IP – Yes, see above<BR>
</B><BR>
(The international oversight body that I suggested can be considered a part of ICANN, that isnt a big issue. The issue is whether to have such a body as different from the board as the executive body, for basic law/policy compliance related accountability, or not. And if so, how to populate it, and how to structure its relationship with other parts of ICANN, especially its board. And of course, how to ensure that it itself does not abuse its power.)<BR>
<BR>
<B>IP – see above.<BR>
</B><BR>
Another issue is, how does ICANN define its mandate. Is it narrowly defined as technical policy development, or is it indeed mandated to take up wider '</FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial">public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources' </FONT><FONT FACE="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial">(to quote Tunis agenda). If not so mandated, is it now your proposal that it now takes up such a role. That is an important issue to clarify. <BR>
<BR>
<B>IP. A difficult one, and the “thick vs thin” ICANN debates have run for a long time. I don’t have an immediate answer, but I don’t see it as advantageous to have numerous bodies each dealing with a little bit of the picture. Where there are gaps I think it is at least worth considering whether the appropriate way to fill them is to expand the ICANN brief. But there will always be other bodies with specific area of interest (WIPO etc) and I don’t think that’s a bad thing<BR>
</B><BR>
I have read numerous statements by NCUC (one of the civil society constituencies within the ICANN) that ICANN should employ only technical, financial and operational criteria in arriving at its decisions, and not go into public policy considerations? Are you now opposed to any such assertion? What is the current stand of NCUC in this regard?<BR>
<BR>
<B>IP – although I think I am still nominally a member of NCUC – like others I was asked to join to support the work of the constituency – I removed myself from the mailing list several years ago because I was disinterested in much of the administrivia that seems to dominate ICANN constituency considerations. So I cant help here. My non-involvement does not suggest that what ICANN does is unimportant – I think it is, but I also think that what bank tellers do in their organisations is important too. But in both cases I think their work and daily procedures is of little interest to me (until such time as something goes wrong of course). In any case, clearly ICANN raises public policy issues and these should be discussed.<BR>
<BR>
IP -As a last remark on this – my suggestion that ICANN be responsible for these issues is not really an endorsement of the way it currently is. I find it very bloated and quite eccentric. However, it does involve all stakeholders and genuinely tries to represent their interests.<BR>
<BR>
</B><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR>
On Tuesday 26 June 2012 09:31 AM, Ian Peter wrote: <BR>
</FONT></FONT></SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? 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>
<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>
<BR>
On Monday 25 June 2012 02:16 AM, David Conrad wrote: <BR>
<BR>
</FONT></FONT></SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
Parminder,<BR>
<BR>
On Jun 21, 2012, at 6:36 PM, parminder wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></FONT></SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
<BR>
</FONT></FONT></SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
<BR>
</FONT></FONT></SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <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>
<BR>
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <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>
<BR>
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
I have proposed some outlines of such a possible model and I you want I can re state it.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <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>
<BR>
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <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>
<BR>
</FONT></FONT></SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
I'll admit I'm still not clear what you believe the "international oversight mechanism" should do.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
More or less what the US gov does in relation to CIR management. <BR>
<BR>
</FONT></FONT></SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <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>
<BR>
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
yes<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></FONT></SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <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>
<BR>
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <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>
<BR>
</FONT></FONT></SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
<BR>
Regards,<BR>
-drc<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><FONT COLOR="#333333"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
<BR>
<HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="3" WIDTH="95%"></FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT COLOR="#333333"><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>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT COLOR="#333333"><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>