<!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">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Ian,<br>
<br>
Thanks for your comments. <br>
<br>
Just to summarize or paraphrase areas of agreements which can help us
move forward. You agree that ICANN should become an international
organisation, cutting its special links with the US, and enter into a
host country agreement (for which you say there is a rough consensus on
this list). You also agree that this will require some kind of an
international law and international charter, which therefore should be
worked towards. I understand that AoC is not the kind of thing we are
asking for here, which Carlos defined as "an agreement of behavior and
procedures between a contractor (Icann) and its client (DOC/NTIA)"</font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">. We seek a 'really'
international law and status for ICANN.<br>
<br>
Perhaps we can park these two elements has having a good degree of
agreement among the proposals for dealing with the oversight issue that
we have seen lately in this group. <br>
<br>
This then brings us to the issue of how to deal with the 'oversight'
function - defined as dealing with public policy issues concerning CIR
management (which includes names, numbers and protocols). This issue
also pointedly comes to the fore from the discussion in the
FBI-DEA-IPv6 thread. I am a surprised at the lack of clarity even among
veterans of this space about who deals with such a key public policy
issue and how, with clear opposite views whether ICANN should be
dealing with it or not. We know that important public policy issues
connecting directly to CIR management will keep on arising in the
future, and perhaps, multiplying in number. We need to foresight how
to deal with this situation. It is not possible to sweep this important
issues under the carpet. <br>
<br>
So, either we have a (1) separate mechanism for 'oversight' as defined
above, or (2) ICANN takes up the role of directly confronting such
public policy issues, and correspondingly being accountable for them.
Many of these issues are just too important for us to allow
institutional vacuums to exist around them, and they will be
increasingly more so.<br>
<br>
This then is the key 'oversight' question left to be discussed. <br>
<br>
You dont want a separate oversight mechanism, and so you must explain
how ICANN would systematically address the various public policy
issues, and not duck them, or try to find ways around them as it often </font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">typically </font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">does (including in the case of
Carlos's recent poser to the ICANN on the FBI-IPv6 issue). <br>
<br>
ICANN has to clearly accept and define its larger public policy role
with regard to CIR management, something which doesnt exist at present.
Correspondingly, it also has to show how its structures and
functioning match this new larger role. (At present, its structure is
developed in terms of a narrower technical policy role, and you will
accept that the requirements of the two kind of roles can be different).<br>
<br>
The civil society involved with ICANN, especially NCUC, may also
express whether they agree with this new expanded role of ICANN,
whereby it would, itself, fully get into public policy considerations
in making its decisions. This, as per my understanding, is contrary to
NCUC's stand till now. There are some key NCUC members on this list who
can clarify.<br>
</font><br>
parminder <br>
<br>
On Thursday 28 June 2012 02:28 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:CC11B122.25BAE%25ian.peter@ianpeter.com"
type="cite">
<title>Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a
"Autonomous Internet" ?</title>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span
style="font-size: 11pt;">Hi Parminder, comments inline<br>
<br>
<br>
<hr size="3" width="95%" align="CENTER"><b>From: </b>parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc: </b><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>>,
David Conrad <<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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 size="3" width="95%" align="CENTER"><b>From: </b>parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>>,
parminder <<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>>,
David Conrad <<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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 size="3" width="95%" align="CENTER"></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 moz-do-not-send="true" href="governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>