<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<small><big><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">McTIm</font></big><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font size="3"><small><br>
<br>
</small> The FBI-DEA-IPv6 issue was only one example of possible
public policy issues. We saw others with regard to the earlier
discussion on delegation of cctlds. Issues of competition policies,
FoE, IP, security concerns..... are all public policy issues.
Tunis agenda asked for "</font><big><font size="3"><span
style="font-weight: normal;">development
of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated
with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources".
There are no such principles at present other than what is largely,
consciously and directly or unconsciously and indirectly, imported from
the US political and governance system. </span></font></big></font></small><small><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font size="3">Even greater
perhaps is the 'unprincipled' (pun intended) narrow interests based
influence of US business and gov. </font><br>
<big><font size="2"><font size="2"><span style="font-weight: 400;"></span></font></font></big></font></small><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><small><br>
<big>parminder </big></small><br>
</font><br>
On Thursday 28 June 2012 06:14 PM, McTim wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxgaWuUmOpWead5GvkN=aq=uJZCdByH_QMA3feBWGMMq7w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">hi,
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:46 AM, parminder <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Ian,
Thanks for your comments.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><SNIP>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Does it?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I thought John explained it rather well.
We know that
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">There is a 3rd option (at least) that I can think of. That there is
no "larger public policy issue that needs to be addressed" here.
WHOIS policies are made by each RIR community. If LEAs have an issue
with WHOIS, they ought to take it up in the appropriate forum, which
is not ICANN itself but associated ICANN "processes".
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This then is the key 'oversight' question left to be discussed.
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 typically does
(including in the case of Carlos's recent poser to the ICANN on the FBI-IPv6
issue).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">First, I think it is useful to understand what, if any, public policy needs to
be addressed (pun intended) that is not currently covered by policy.
I am not seeing one.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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).cy for
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">As John described, IF a global policy needs ratification, that is done
by the ICANN BoD.
There is no global policy under consideration here, so the ICANN Board
(perhaps understandably)
had no reaction, as they have no role to play.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The civil society involved with ICANN, especially NCUC, may also express
whether they agree with this new expanded role of ICANN,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">no expanded role needed. Policies are made at Regional level in this
case. NCUC folk are involved in those regional policy deliberations.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>